Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKERin the Chair]

PETITION

Housing Finance Bill

Mr. David Stoddart: I have been asked, Mr. Speaker, by 3,500 people in Swindon to present to Parliament a petition protesting about the Government's Housing Finance Bill.
The Petition
Sheweth that the Government's proposals in the Housing Finance Bill will impose a £1 per week rise in council house rents over the next 18 months, will double the rents of millions of council house tenants, will put millions more tenants both council and private on a means test, and will remove all control of council rents from the local authorities.
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that the House will not pass the Housing Finance Bill. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
I think the House will agree that the petition comes at an appropriate time, bearing in mind that the Report stage of the Housing Finance Bill is to be taken today. I can only hope that the petitioners'plea will be heeded and that the House will reject this odious, class-ridden Bill.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Republic of Ireland

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about relations with the Irish Republic.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): It is our wish and intention to maintain good relations with the people and Government of the Irish Republic.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While I agree with that, is not the ease with which notorious IRA men cross and recross the Border making this country a laughing stock? What progress is being made with Dublin, which is at least as much threatened by the IRA as we are, and has consideration been given to joint Border control by the RUC and the Garda Siochana?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I echo my hon. Friend's concern. Dreadful things are happening on the Border. The situation causes us deep concern in the Government. The more co-operation there can be on the Border between the Irish Republican forces and our forces, the better this will be. I will convey my hon. Friend's suggestion to the right quarter.

Vietnam

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the latest situation in Vietnam in the light of Her Majesty's Government's position as co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Indo-China, in the light of Her Majesty's Government's position as co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference.

Mr. Cormack: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the approaches that have been made to the Soviet authorities during the last seven days with a view to re-convening the Geneva Conference on Indo-China.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): I would refer to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) and for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) on 17th April. This contained a full statement of the Government's position on the situation in Vietnam. On 20th April the Ambassador in Moscow reiterated to Mr. Gromyko our suggestion that the


Geneva Conference should be reconvened. Mr. Gromyko replied that he did not consider this practicable.—[Vol. 835. c. 16–17.]

Mr. Huckfield: Is the hon. Gentleman really interested in the re-election of President Nixon, or is he interested in securing peace in Vietnam? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that if President Nixon escalates his bombing, especially of Hanoi and Haiphong, and if there is any retaliation involving the bombing of the South, the escalation of this war will be of proportions that we have not seen before, especially nuclear proportions? Will the hon. Gentleman therefore make strong representations to President Nixon to clear out of South Vietnam for good?

Mr. Royle: The recent intensification of the fighting in Vietnam is clearly the result of a flagrant invasion of South Vietnam by North Vietnamese regular troops equipped with tanks, heavy artillery and rocket missiles. We greatly regret that the North Vietnamese should have taken this action instead of responding to numerous American and South Vietnamese appeals for negotiations without preconditions.

Mr. Blaker: Have not the recent attacks by the North Vietnamese across the boundary to South Vietnam destroyed their claim to depend on the support of the population in the South? In addition, have not the repeated invasions by North Vietnamese in Laos and Cambodia been in breach of undertakings which they themselves gave at the Geneva Conference?

Mr. Royle: I agree with my hon. Friend's remarks. Certainly there has been no popular support in South Vietnam for the invasion. The columns of refugees moving south ahead of the invaders are an indication of this. In Saigon, even politicians in opposition to President Thieu have condemned the invasions.

Mr. Cormack: Is my hon. Friend aware that his forthright statements both today and in answer to Written Questions last week will be greeted with relief and approval by all people of good sense who genuinely want peace in South Vietnam? Does not the naked and brutal aggression from the north prove the total failure

of the policy of infiltration and guerrilla tactics pursued over the past several years?

Mr. Royle: Her Majesty's Government remain ready to help promote a peaceful settlement in Vietnam in any way which may be open to them. But, to be effective, any initiative by Her Majesty's Government would have to be acceptable to all the parties involved in the conflict. Unfortunately, the recent Communist attack makes it clear that they still wish to try to impose their will on South Vietnam by force rather than seek a negotiated settlement.

Mr. Ford: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that, in the unlikely event of South Vietnam being overrun by Communist forces, the extinction of minorities is possible? Will he consult his co-Chairman in order to take every step to avoid such a contingency?

Mr. Royle: This is a matter which we would be glad to discuss with the Soviet co-Chairman if he were willing to do so.

Mr. Richard: Is the hon. Gentleman aware the recent events in Vietnam cause those of us on this side of the House deep concern? Secondly, is he aware that we adhere to our previously stated policy that the only way to bring this conflict to an end is by reconvening the Geneva Conference? Thirdly, is he aware that we would condemn in the strongest possible terms the Government of the United States of America if the heightened level of military activity were to prove to have been a change in their stated policy of withdrawal from South-East Asia?

Mr. Royal: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that Her Majesty's Government are also deeply concerned about the situation in Vietnam. President Nixon has warned on a number of occasions that if the North Vietnamese stepped up military activity in Vietnam while United States ground forces were withdrawing, thereby endangering those American troops which remained, he reserved the right to meet the threat by the use of United States air power against military targets in North Vietnam. The North Vietnamese, therefore, know and knew what American


reaction was likely to be when they launched their fresh invasion of the South.

Chemical Weapons

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will put forward at Geneva proposals for international control of chemical weapons, along the lines of the 1972 Treaty on Biological Weapons.

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will initiate discussions at Geneva with a view to the adoption of an international convention on the control of chemical weapons other than biological weapons.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Joseph Godber): The problems of the international control of chemical and biological weapons are not the same. Her Majesty's Government are seeking ways to make progress towards an effective agreement on chemical weapons.

Mr. Dalyell: What precisely is the British objection to the Russian draft?

Mr. Godber: The precise objection is that the two matters are totally different. Verification is essential if we are to have effective control of chemical weapons. If the Russians work with us on verification we might make some progress.

Mr. Archer: Would it not be a helpful beginning if the Government were to announce now that on reflection they have decided that CS2 gas is within the Geneva Convention?

Mr. Godber: I do not think that that arises on this matter. This is a matter to which we are giving consideration, but it would not affect in any degree the progress we make on the CW arrangements.

Bacteriological Weapons

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the signing of the Convention on Bacteriological Weapons by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Com-

monwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the agreement recently concluded on the use of germ warfare.

Mr. Godber: The Biological Weapons Convention, which is now open for signature, and which of course Her Majesty's Government have signed, represents a significant achievement for the Disarmament Conference. It prohibits in all circumstances the possesssion of biological weapons. I am glad to record that it was the result of a British initiative. I hope it will soon come into force.

Mr. Blaker: Does my right hon. Friend accept that both the present Government and the previous Government deserve great credit for their respective parts in carrying the matter forward to a successful conclusion? Will he confirm that the convention involves the actual destruction of existing weapons and that, therefore, this is the first convention which involves real disarmament as opposed to arms control?

Mr. Godber: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I gladly accord a degree of the success on this matter to the previous Administration which initiated much of this work, but the achievement is significant. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, it provides for the destruction of existing weapon stocks. This is a pointer to the way in which we will proceed in future with other matters of this kind.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the Minister appreciate that some hon. Members on this side of the House understand the difference between chemical and biological warfare? Does he agree that, the Russians for the first time having accepted the principle of verification in this convention, this is possibly a hope for the future? Will he tell us whether the Government intend speedily to ratify the convention and whether they will take an early opportunity of trying to bring China into any future discussions on this and related matters?

Mr. Godber: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said. If he studies the convention carefully he will realise that the arrangements for verification are minute. We have to build on this and produce something more. However, it is hopeful so far as it goes. Certainly it is our intention to go forward


to ratification, but the convention cannot come into force until 22 States have ratified. I hope that it will not be long before this happens. I agree that it is desirable to bring China into the disarmament discussions and we shall certainly do all that we can to that end.

Malacca Straits

Mr. Laurance Reed: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts he has had with the Governments of Indonesia and Malaysia over the future status of the Malacca Straits.

Mr. Anthony Royle: We have informed the Governments of Indonesia and Malaysia, as well as that of Singapore, of our view that the Malacca Straits are straits which are used for international navigation between one part of the high seas and another, and between one part of the high seas and the territorial sea of a particular State. It is the view of Her Majesty's Government that ships of all States have a right of unimpeded passage through such straits.

Mr. Reed: Is it not a matter of concern to all maritime nations that there is a growing tendency to erode the principle of freedom of navigation on the high seas? Will my hon. Friend be raising this matter during the preparatory stages of the United Nations international conference on the Law of the Sea?

Mr. Royle: We have supported the preparatory work for this conference which we regard, as indeed my hon. Friend clearly does, as the right place for settling problems such as the status of the Malacca Straits.

Asian Commonwealth Countries (Trade)

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guarantees he is now offering to Asian countries in the Commonwealth that the level of trade they currently have with Great Britain will not be reduced if Great Britain enters the European Economic Community.

Mr. Anthony Royle: We and the Community have said that it will be our continuing objective to expand and reinforce

existing trade relations with these countries.
The European Economic Community is ready from the date of our accession to examine with these countries any problems that may arise in the field of trade with a view to seeking a satisfactory solution.

Mr. Meacher: Since only 20 per cent. of the imports of the Six come from developing countries compared with our 26 per cent. and since the Asian members of the Commonwealth have not been offered associate status within the Community, will the Minister acknowledge that under present arrangements these countries, which comprise one-fifth of the world's population, will suffer a serious loss of trade if Britain enters the EEC?

Mr. Royle: The majority of exports from these countries to the United Kingdom will not be affected by our gradual adoption of the common external tariff either because the rates of duty will be zero—for instance, tea—or because of the Community's generalised scheme of preferences.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that already the European Economic Community has changed its policy considerably towards those countries and has much liberalised trade with them?

Mr. Royle: That is correct.

Rhodesia

Miss Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the dossier prepared by Mr. Ian Smith on the allegations of violence and intimidation when the Pearce Commission was in Southern Rhodesia.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir. The dossier was presented to the Pearce Commission and not to me and it is for the Commission to consider it.

Miss Lestor: Bearing in mind that unless information such as this dossier is said to contain is made publicly available very little credibility can be attached to it, and also bearing in mind the Foreign Secretary's knowledge of the intimidation, the assaults, the imprisonment and the detention which have taken


place concerning people who were campaigning against the terms of the settlement, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make available to the House the most detailed information possible about what took place when the Pearce Commission was in Rhodesia?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I shall consider the matter, but I should prefer to see the Pearce Report first. The hon. Member will remember that Lord Pearce particularly asked for two extra commissioners to deal with this question of intimidation, so I should like to see his report first.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: Although there was a certain amount of intimidation or direct pressure both ways, would my right hon. Friend agree that the degree and extent of it was not really as great as to invalidate the findings of the Pearce Commission, whatever they may be?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Lord Pearce considered this at one time in relation to whether his commission could stay in Rhodesia, and obviously he considered that he could carry on with his job. The situation was not such as to prevent his staying there. As regards the future, I should like to consider what my hon. Friend has said, but we must see Lord Pearce and his report.

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman has twice said that he wants to see Lord Pearce's report. Can he say what the present status is of that, when he hopes to receive it and when we are likely to hear a statement on it? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the absence of the publication of this document prepared by Mr. Smith, there is considerable concern that action may be taken against people on very tainted evidence?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think I shall receive the report very shortly, in a matter of a few weeks—I hope at about the beginning of May. Thereafter we shall have to debate the matter, which will be a matter for discussion between the right hon. Gentleman, the usual channels and myself. It is a report to me and I should like to have time to consider it. The House, too, will want to consider all these matters. I shall bear in mind what the right hon. Gentle-

man has said, particularly about detainees.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in view of the facts that an illegal tribunal has declared that the continued detention of Garfield and Judith Todd and Josiah and Ruth China-mano is necessary in the interests of public safety and order, and that the illegal régime is unwilling to try people in an open court of law, what action Her Majesty's Government will now take to free these British subjects from detention without trial.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As the House knows, we have made representations about these detentions, but we have no power to secure release or open trial.

Mr. Jenkins: What action is the right hon. Gentleman proposing to take to secure some power to reimpose the reality of British rule in Rhodesia and to secure the release of all those detained without trial by the usurping régime?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As to reimposing the reality of power, the hon. Gentleman knows that his Government could not impose what he calls the reality of power. They tried once in relation to those Africans condemned to be hanged, and they failed. At least the position about detainees is better than it was two years ago. There are 67 now, where there were 133 before. No one is content with that, but at least the position is better.

Mr. Jenkins: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raised the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Common wealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest developments with regard to the work of the Pearce Commission.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is yet able to make a statement on the conclusions of the Pearce Commission, and on the United Kingdom's relations with the Rhodesian Government in the light of these conclusions.

Mr. William Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he can now give the date when he expects to receive Lord Pearce's report on the proposed settlement with Rhodesia.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Pearce Commission is still preparing its report. I hope to receive it fairly soon. As I told the House on 27th March, I shall then need some time to consider the report before making any further statement of policy.—[Vol. 834, c. 4.]

Mr. Davis: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the sort of back-door pressure which the illegal régime in Rhodesia is seeking to exercise upon him and upon the Pearce Commission? Further, will he say who the emissaries were who were received by his Department last week from that régime, what was the purpose of their visit and what was its outcome?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken if he thinks that I am inclined to give way to what he calls back-door pressure. That is not my habit. As regards the emissaries, the hon. Gentleman will know that we have a representative in Salisbury all the time. Mr. Smith wanted two of his close advisers to talk about possibilities for the future, and I thought that it was a sensible thing to do.

Mr. Wall: Can my right hon. Friend give some idea when he will be able to make a statement to the House—for example, whether it will be before the Whitsun Recess—and will he say how many officials we have representing our Government in the Rhodesian capital?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I imagine that my hon. Friend did not hear the earlier exchanges on that point. I hope to receive the report some time about the beginning of May. Thereafter it will be for me to study the report, and that I shall do. We shall then arrange through the usual channels for a statement and debate. My hon. Friend spoke of the Whitsun Recess. It is a matter which we shall have to consider through the usual channels; we shall try to make the timing convenient to the House.

Mr. David Steel: Could the right hon. Gentleman clarify the answers which he has given? It is his intention, is it not,

to publish the report after he has had time to study it?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir of course.

Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Empress Catharine once put a guard on a snowdrop, and it was found to be still there 200 years later? Is not our guard on the Mozambique Channel rapidly falling into the same category?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. and learned Gentleman's analogies are always amusing. While sanctions last, we have to maintain our obligations under them.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the illegal Rhodesian régime concerning infringements of the undertakings given to him by Mr. Smith prior to the establishment of the Pearce Commission; and what reply he has received.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I would wish to see Lord Pearce's findings on this before I decide whether any action is called for.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that Mr. Smith is still pursuing viciously racialist policies, despite the undertakings that were given prior to the setting up of the Pearce Commission, notably about the razing to the ground, purely for racialist reasons, of the homes of black Rhodesians? What representations did the right hon. Gentleman make last week to the secret emissaries from the Smith régime?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have told Mr. Smith on many occasions that we disagree with the action he has taken, that we deplore some of his actions in this respect and that these detentions are unjustified. However, I have no power to insist on what action Mr. Smith should take in Rhodesia. I would like to see Lord Pearce's findings on this matter before considering any further action I can usefully take.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Why did the right hon. Gentleman think it proper for emissaries of the Smith régime to be received by his Department while the


British Government thought it improper to have a meeting with Bishop Muzorewa on his recent visit?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am always willing to see anybody from Rhodesia who wishes to see me if I think that such a meeting will contribute towards a solution of the present difficult problem. I do not think I was here when the Bishop was in London.

Bangladesh

Mr. Barnes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has from the Commonwealth Secretariat about the admission of Bangladesh to the Commonwealth.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As the Commonwealth Secretary-General announced last week, Bangladesh has now been admitted to the Commonwealth. This is welcome news and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sent a message to Sheik Mujib to say so.

Mr. Barnes: I warmly welcome the admission of Bangladesh to the Commonwealth. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is encouraging for the future of the Commonwealth that a new nation such as Bangladesh should set the value which it appears to have done on Commonwealth membership? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when he expects to visit Bangladesh?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the first part of his question. I hope to visit Bangladesh at either the end of June or the beginning of July.

Mr. Mather: Has my right hon. Friend any information about the release of Pakistani prisoners of war by Bangladesh?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Not as yet. Most of the prisoners of war are in India. If my hon. Friend would like a more detailed answer, perhaps he would put down a Question.

Mr. Woodhouse: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in the course of discussions on continuing aid to Bangladesh, he will make representations to the Government on the desirability of

humane treatment of the Bihari population.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This is, of course, primarily a matter for the Bangladesh Government, but it has inevitably arisen in the course of my exchanges with them. Sheik Mujibur Rahman has assured me that he has taken all measures necessary for ensuring the safety and security of the minorities. The International Red Cross has been concerned with the welfare of the Biharis and Her Majesty's Government have given financial support for its work.

Mr. Woodhouse: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for that reply, and I appreciate the caution with which he has to approach a matter of this kind, but would it not at least be reasonable to point out to the Government of Bangladesh that the number of Biharis in Bangladesh is about the same as the number of Bengalis in West Pakistan, and the latter have not been molested in any way whatever?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I should correct my hon. Friend's figures. There are about 1 million Biharis in Bangladesh and 200,000 Bengalis in Pakistan, so there is a discrepancy there. I believe that Sheik Mujib wants, about all, that the Biharis should be able to live peacefully in Bangladesh, and I think that this is the right answer. There may be some exchanges arranged, but my hon. Friend will see the magnitude of the task if it is to be extended very far.

Mr. Tinn: Have we had independent confirmation of Sheik Mujib's assurance regarding the security of the Biharis either from our own relief teams in Dacca or from our mission there?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir; we have constant reports from our mission there, and we have reports also from the International Red Cross. At one time there was a fear that there might be risings and massacres but, happily, very little has occurred, and one must hope that the Biharis will be safe in Bangladesh. As I say, the possibility of a limited exchange is one matter, but the problem is very large, as the hon. Gentleman realises.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and


Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about British aid or technical assistance towards the rebuilding of the Hardinge Bridge in north-west Bangladesh.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood): At the request of the Bangladesh Government, we have concluded a contract with Selco Ltd., a Singapore firm, to remove and salvage the fallen spans of the Hardinge and King George VI railway bridges. We havealso engaged a British firm of consulting engineers to supervise this work.

Mr. Huckfield: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that news will be greatly welcomed by the Government of Bangladesh, particularly as we built this bridge originally and should, in my view, have some responsibility for it? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that this project goes through in the fastest possible manner to enable Indian grain trains to get through before the monsoon season starts?

Mr. Wood: I understand the urgency of the matter. The firm started mobilising vessels and equipment 10 days ago and the consulting engineer has been discussing with the company recently and hopes to be in Dacca today, so no time should be lost.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: While also welcoming the news which the right hon. Gentleman has announced, may I ask whether he is aware that the most acute problem in Bangladesh is that of transport? Does he appreciate that the measures which he has announced represent one important step forward but that other forms of aid, particularly those directed to the transport of food and materials, and especially housing materials, are urgently required and that the rest of the developed world could be of great assistance in this respect at comparatively small cost?

Mr. Wood: Further Questions appear on the Order Paper about Bangladesh and I am sure that when they are answered the hon. Gentleman will learn the other information he requires.

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. DALYELL: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the latest convenient figures for British aid to Bangladesh.

Mr. PRENTICE: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on British aid to Bangladesh.

Mr. BARNES: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is now in a position to make a further statement about British aid for Bangladesh.

Mr. FRANK ALLAUN: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, and Commonwealth Affairs if he will help Bangladesh to avoid the danger of famine by sending trucks, buses, boats, fuel and technicians as requested publicly by Sheik Mujibur Rahman on 14th March.

Mr. TORNEY: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action he proposes to aid Bangladesh.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Foreign Secretary wishes to answer Questions Nos. 32, 33, 34, 36 and 37 at the end of Question Time.

European Economic Community

Mr. Deakins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if implementation of the second and third stages of the European Economic Community economic and monetary union will require parliamentary legislative enactment:
(2) what rôle his Department is performing in respect of the European Economic Community proposals for economic and monetary union.

Mr. Anthony Royle: No specific proposals have yet been made about the second and third stages of movement towards economic and monetary integration in the European Communities. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in close consultation with the Treasury and, where appropriate, with other Government Departments, pays close attention to developments in this field.

Mr. Deakins: Since the Government have accepted in principle economic and


monetary union by 1980, does not the Minister think it is a fit subject for parliamentary legislative enactment before we give up national control of our monetary and fiscal policies, before we have to co-ordinate economic policy at Community level and before we have to submit our national Budgets to the Council of Ministers for recommendations to this Parliament before being submitted to this Parliament?

Mr. Royle: The hon. Gentleman must realise that the nature and the form of what is agreed will determine consequent action. Nothing has as yet been agreed beyond the first stage, the resolution of 21st March.

Mr. Marten: What is the objection to parliamentary action?

Mr. Royle: The objection to parliamentary action is that we cannot decide what action should be taken in this country until we know what is proposed.

Mr. Callaghan: We are not a bit surprised to hear that this economic and monetary will-of-the-wisp has not got any further, but we are relieved to hear the hon. Gentleman's answer that it has not.

Mr. Royle: I think the right hon. Gentleman is not being completely fair. Progress towards economic and monetary harmonisation in Europe is complementary to all our hopes for a world-wide reform of the international monetary system to make it more responsive to the needs of the 'seventies. If Europe develops a common voice on these matters, it could give a powerful stimulus to reform.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is no agreement that a regional economic or monetary union of this sort will assist world monetary developments on the basis that they should develop and that the very reverse may be the truth? May I ask the hon. Gentleman, in conjunction with the Treasury, to consider seriously where the Government will get to, even though I recognise that the difficulties of doing this are, thank heavens, so formidable that nothing is likely to happen?

Mr. Royle: I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman does not agree with the Government's view of this, but it is our view that progress towards economic and

monetary harmonisation in Europe will lead ultimately towards the hoped-for world-wide reform of the international monetary system.

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next be meeting the Council of Ministers of the Common Market.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and I meet Foreign Ministers of the Six and the acceding States fairly frequently at the meetings preparatory to the European Summit Conference and at those for political consultation. With the completion of the negotiations we have no present plans to meet the Council of Ministers as such.

Mr. Marten: In spite of that, before the next meeting, when they do meet should not the Government make their views publicly known about the question of direct elections to the European Parliament? Why are the Government being so coy about this aspect, particularly in view of the simply derisory vote yesterday in France in favour of an enlarged Community?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: On the last point, I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is claiming this as a victory for a referendum here. On the first point that he raised, when we come to meet the Council as a Council we shall no doubt discuss with it the question of direct elections and their practicability. But this is a matter that needs discussion and on which we should not lay down the law.

Mr. Molloy: As M. Pompidou's propaganda-motivated referendum has fallen flat, would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to recommend to his right hon. Friend that he should be allowed to go to the Council of Ministers and say that the Prime Minister of Great Britain has at last agreed to honour his election pledge and have a General Election, and show the Europeans how to do it properly?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite were not quite as keen on a General Election lately as they were some weeks ago. The hon. Gentleman asked about a referendum. The possibility of holding a referendum


is written into the French constitution. It is nothing to do with me.

Mr. Blaker: Are there not encouraging signs that opinion in the Six is moving towards accepting the need for a common regional industrial policy? Is not this likely to be very much to our advantage, and will British Ministers be following it up?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir, I think there are considerable hopes that the regional policy of the Community will help us a great deal.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Will not the next meeting of the Council of Ministers be concerned primarily with arrangements regarding the EFTA countries? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he will bring all possible pressure to bear to ensure that a reasonable and fair agreement is reached?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: A number of the EFTA countries have been negotiating with and are in contact with the Commission; we also are in contact with the Commission and the Foreign Ministers of the other countries. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we shall do our best to protect their interests.

Guatemala

Dr. Gilbert: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about current Anglo-Guatemalan relations.

Mr. Godber: Our relations are affected by the Guatemalan claim to British Honduras. The aim of Her Majesty's Government is that British Honduras should achieve independence free from any claim against her territory and on good terms with her neighbours. We shall continue our attempts to achieve a negotiated settlement.

Dr. Gilbert: What precedent is there for the situation to which the combined posturings of the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence have brought us, namely, that we have to submit to a foreign observer, in this case one from the OAS, to oversee the withdrawal of British troops from a British dependent territory?

Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong, as usual. It is not a question of the British Government having to submit. The British Government offered to provide facilities for an observer because—[Laughter.] There is no point in the hon. Gentleman laughing about this. I am giving him the facts. There was an allegation by the Guatemalan Government that we had larger forces than we have. We therefore suggested that the OAS might care to send an observer to see who was telling the truth. Britain is telling the truth.

World Health Organisation (East German Participation)

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the United Kingdom Government will support the application of the German Democratic Republic for membership in the World Health Organisation to be made at the forth coming World Health Assembly.

Mr. Godber: No, Sir. As I told the House on 21st January, the international status of the German Democratic Republic has for long been in dispute. The question of East German participation in the World Health Organisation is a political issue which, we believe, should not be dealt with in a technical body such as the World Health Organisation but in an appropriate political organ of the United Nations, such as the General Assembly.—[Vol. 829. c. 275.]

Dr. Summerskill: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the intrusion of power politics into the specialised agencies of the United Nations is regrettable and that the World Health Organisation Assembly would benefit from the equal participation of all nations, including the German Democratic Republic?

Mr. Godber: I agree that the intrusion of power politics into these specialised agencies is wrong. I had some experience of it myself in the past. I remember an occasion at a UNESCO meeting in Paris when I was involved in a difficult situation as a result of such intrusion. Others are seeking to make that intrusion into the WHO, and we think it wrong; we consider that matters of this kind should be settled in the political organs of the United Nations.

Mr. Richard: The right hon. Gentleman is showing no sense of urgency on this matter. Is he aware that although some of us agree that this particular problem and others similar can, perhaps, not be primarily solved by individual solutions along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), we should wish to express our strong support for the Ostpolitik now being pursued so vigorously by the West German Administration? Will he agree that it might well be that within that context there is the best chance for the future of making eventual use of the undoubted talents of the GDR?

Mr. Godber: I understand what the hon. and learned Gentleman says about the Ostpolitik, and we have always supported that Ostpolitik. But it is for the Bundestag itself to make the decisions in this regard, and, just as we should resent being told by it what decisions we should come to, I feel that it is wrong for us to suggest what decision it should take. As I say, we have always supported the Ostpolitik, and, if the Bundestag should ratify, we should welcome it.

Ruldolf Hess

Mr. Neave: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to secure the release of Rudolf Hess.

Mr. Anthony Royle: My hon. Friend knows my interest and concern about this. Nothing can be done without Soviet agreement. As my hon. Friend is aware, Her Majesty's Government have made numerous representations to the Soviet authorities that the dictates of humanity require that Hess should be released. We are always willing to make a further approach to them when we consider that this might achieve a positive result.

Mr. Neave: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but will he put this matter on the agenda for the next four-Power conference in Berlin? How long will the British Government remain party to the detention of one man as a solitary prisoner in a 600-cell prison in Spandau?

Mr. Royle: As I say, I share my hon. Friend's concern. Before signature of the final quadripartite protocol, we

have to agree with the Russians the details regarding establishment of their consulate-general and commercial premises in West Berlin. It may be that discussion of these questions will offer an opportunity to raise once again the question of Hess, but I can make no promises. It is a question of priorities, and the Berlin agreement must come first.

Pakistan and Bangladesh

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about Her Majesty's Government's relations with Pakistan and Bangladesh, respectively.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I informed the House on 27th March—[Vol. 834, c. 31–32]—that President Bhutto had told me that he hoped to maintain and improve Pakistan's bilateral relations with the United Kingdom. This is Her Majesty's Government's wish also, although Pakistan's decision to leave the Commonwealth will inevitably involve changes and the loss by Pakistan of certain privileges.
As regards Bangladesh, we wish to develop further our present good relations with that country and I am sure the House will join me in welcoming Bangladesh into the Commonwealth.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the offer by President Bhutto to release the Indian prisoners whom Pakistan holds without necessarily claiming a quid pro quo? Will Her Majesty's Government do everything possible to assist the normalisation of relations between the two countries?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. I hoped to contribute towards that objective when I was in Pakistan. I am glad to say that the emissaries of India and Pakistan will be meeting shortly and will be covering these questions.

Mr. Kaufman: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we have arrived at an anomalous situation when Bangladesh is inside the Commonwealth and Pakistan is outside? Will he ask the Commonwealth Secretary-General to approach President Bhutto with a view to persuading him in the new circumstances to return to the Commonwealth, which would, among other things, bring great


relief from anxiety to Pakistanis in this country?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We would very much like Pakistan to return to the Commonwealth and I said this to President Bhutto when I was recently in Pakistan. For the moment, however, he has made his judgment, but I hope it is not final.

Rev. Arthur Lewis

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why the Rev. Arthur Lewis of Rusape, Rhodesia, has not been allowed to enter Great Britain with his family on compassionate grounds to visit his elderly and ailing father.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Rev. Lewis, who is a United Kingdom citizen, was not refused permission to enter this country with his family. I understand they are now here.

Mr. Wall: I welcome that answer. Why was there such a long delay and why was this man asked to furnish nine different documents, four of which were in this country? Is my right hon. Friend aware that this case inevitably bears comparison with the treatment meted out to Bishop Muzorewa?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that the Rev. Lewis thought he could travel only on a Rhodesian passport. It was discovered that he and his family had a right to a United Kingdom passport, so the formalities were due to giving him a better passport than he would otherwise have.

Trinidad (Regional Virus Laboratory)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why he has tapered off the aid given to the Trinidad Regional Virus Laboratory from 55 per cent. of the costs to 35 per cent.

Mr. Wood: A condition of the grant, when it was made in 1963, was that it should be tapered over a period of years, both because technical assistance like this was properly a pump-priming operation and because tapering would progressively release funds for new schemes. It was also felt that institutions like this labora-

tory should progressively become the responsibility of the Governments or universities of the countries in which they were situated.

Mr. Pavitt: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this laboratory is integrated into a whole network of preventive medicine, not only in Trinidad but throughout the region, including South America? Does he further realise the great demands that are placed on this money and the increased staff that is required to monitor things like influenza, which can have a great effect on the health services here because the virus of influenza does not stop in Trinidad?

Mr. Wood: I agree that the work of the laboratory is extremely important but I insist on the validity of the points I have made; and in spite of the percentage tapering the amount that we are now providing is considerably higher than the amount we were providing in the last three years.

Developing Countries (Income)

Mr. Douglas-Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the average increase in the per capita income of developing countries and the developed countries, respectively, during the 1960s, or any other recent similar period for which figures are available.

Mr. Wood: It was 2·1 per cent. and 4·2 per cent., respectively, between 1960 and 1968, at constant factor prices.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that those figures indicate that the under-developed world has suffered a relative decline in its overall position? Are not the trading policies being adopted by the developed countries most unsatisfactory and will the Government support policies at UNCTAD which will reverse that relative trend in the next decade?

Mr. Wood: This is naturally a matter which gives us all the deepest concern, on whichever side of the House we sit because we want to try to narrow the gap between the developing and the developed countries. I hope that the present discussions at UNCTAD will suggest ways by which we can make progress. The Government have been doing their best


to make progress, for example by accepting a target for aid and by taking steps to increase the flow of private investment to the developing countries.

Mrs. Hart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the increased gap between the developed and the underdeveloped countries to which he referred is causing great concern and distress and that it appears that Her Majesty's Government at UNCTAD in Santiago are doing nothing but uttering a lot of words without taking any concrete steps to support the vitally important proposals which are being made there by the developing countries?

Mr. Wood: As the right hon. Lady knows, we shall have later in the week a chance to discuss all these matters at length, and I hope that on that occasion it will be possible for Ministers to explain in detail the sort of things we have in mind.

Mr. Tugendhat: Is it not a fact that some of the developing countries could do their own cause a great deal of good and greatly accelerate the rate of growth of their economies if they took steps to encourage private investment to a greater extent, in conjunction with the steps that are being taken by the developed countries?

Mr. Wood: That is an important factor. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the developing countries have made and are making great efforts to improve their growth rates and that some have been remarkably successful.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will the right hon. Gentleman give greater consideration to the kind of aid we give to the developing and under-developed nations? Western Europe helps them by giving them technical advice, but the situation is not satisfactory when it comes to purchasing the goods they produce. At one time we received a ton of cocoa from some of the developing countries as the price of every tractor we sold to them, but now we receive five tons. Is that how we help them?

Mr. Woods: Questions of trade with the developing countries are obviously strictly the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade

and Industry. But if the hon. Gentleman considers the matter he will realise that our own trading policies have been among the most liberal of the developed countries.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Power Stations

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what new power stations he has authorised for construction during the seven years from 1st April, 1972; what aggregate megawatts installed are embraced by this seven years' authorisation; and how much is coal-fired, how much is oil-fired and how much is nuclear-powered.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): With the permission of the House, I will circulate, in the Official Report, the details requested for the CEGB stations now under construction and including Ince B. This programme extends until 1978 and the CEGB advises me that it has no firm plans at present for further orders for major stations.

Sir G. Nabarro: But can my hon. Friend say whether any coal-fired stations are included in the seven-years' programme to 1978? As the Central Electricity Generating Board today consumes about half of our total output of coal, is it not essential to the future plans of the National Coal Board that it should know exactly what off-take of coal is needed at the power stations?

Mr. Emery: My hon. Friend will see in the OFFICIAL REPORT that the Kingsnorth power station is both oil- and coal-fired and the Didcot power station is coal-fired. It is the CEGB that has to make its recommendation to the Minister on its plans for fuel for future stations.

Mr. Benn: What growth rate forecasts has the CEGB in its future plans? Do they correspond with the forecasts of growth made by the Government in their very optimistic statement?

Mr. Emery: If the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on growth


rate, I shall then, and only then, be able to give him the exact answer.

Following are the details:

The stations now under construction for the CEGB which are programmed for completion by 31st March, 1979 are as follows:


Station
Fuel
Output Capacity of Steam plant (MW)


Kingsnorth
…
Oil/Coal
…
2,000


Fiddlers Ferry
…
Coal
…
2,000


Aberthaw B
…
Coal
…
1,500


Pembroke
…
Oil
…
2,000


Didcot
…
Coal
…
2,000


Dungeness B
…
Nuclear (AGR)
…
1,320


Drax I
…
Coal
…
1,980


Hinkley Point B
…
Nuclear (AGR)
…
1,320


Hartlepool
…
Nuclear (AGR)
…
1,320


Heysham
…
Nuclear (AGR)
…
1,320


Grain
…
Oil
…
3,300


Ince B*
…
Oil
…
1,000


*The CEGB is negotiating to Place main orders for this station as soon as possible




ANALYSIS OF CEGB CAPACITY UNDER CONSTRUCTION BY FUEL


Coal fired
…
7,480
(36%)
(4 stations)


Coal/Oil fired
…
2,000
(9%)
(1 stations)


Oil fired
…
6,300
(30%)
(3 stations)


Nuclear
…
5,280
(25%)
(4 stations)


Total steam capacity
…
21,060

(12 stations)

In addition, the stations include 795 MW of gas turbine generation.

Mines (Licensing)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his conversations with the owners of licensed small mines are completed; and what steps he now proposes to take in connection with such small mines in regard to their licensing facilities.

Mr. Emery: No, Sir. I am awaiting information from the Federation of Small Mines of Great Britain to enable me to consider its claim for assistance. It agreed last week to meet my Department this coming Wednesday to see what can be achieved.

Sir G. Nabarro: I compliment my hon. Friend upon the acceleration of the arrangements on behalf of the small licensed private enterprise pits. I remind him that they make a useful contribution to meeting the overall coal shortage today. Is he aware that we are still importing coal, which is quite disgraceful and a drain on our national re-

sources? Would not it be sensible for a Conservative Government to encourage private enterprise and the expansion of the small mines licensing arrangements?

Mr. Emery: It is to look at the whole problem of the small mines, through their federation, since the settlement of the miners' wage claim, that the meeting has been arranged, and it is with that intention that I have purposely asked that it should be brought forward.

Telecommunications Stored Programme Control

Mr. Golding: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what grants have been made in the last five years for the development of telecommunications stored programme control techniques; and what results have been so far obtained.

Mr. Emery: No grants have been made. However, the National Research Development Corporation is providing financial assistance of about £4 million for a project of the Plessey Co. Ltd. Work is proceeding on the project.

Mr. Golding: Is the Minister prepared to say when results will be declared from that project? Is he aware that they will have a great significance for future investment in the Post Office, and should be known as quickly as possible?

Mr. Emery: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman when the results will be known. This is a matter which rests not with me but with the Plessey Company. I fully understand the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question and shall have it drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications.

Altodie Companies

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has received the communication dated 16th April from the hon. Member for West Ham, North asking him to exercise his statutory authority regarding the Altodie Limited and Altodie (Northern) Limited Companies; what action he has taken; and what was the nature of his reply to the hon. Member.

Mr. Emery: Yes, Sir. This letter was received last week, acknowledged last


week and a reply will be sent as soon as possible, I hope this week.

Mr. Lewis: I am very much obliged for the expeditious way in which the interim announcements are being made. But will the hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that he will not allow this case to drag on as his Department did with regard to John Bloom, Vehicle and General and about 20 other companies that have been deliberately and consistently breaking the law for years and years, with no action taken against them? Will he treat such companies a little more viciously, in the same way as the trade unions have been treated viciously over their breaking the law?

Mr. Emery: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that he would be the first to want to ensure that a full and proper investigation was carried out and that no blame or anything else was suggested until the inquiry had been carried through. That has always been the intention of my Department, and I intend to see that it continues in that way.

European Economic Community

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will give for the longest and most convenient stated period of monthly or annual dates the number of cash amounts of imports of footwear from each of the countries of the Six; to what extent import duties were imposed; how entry into the European Economic Community on present terms will affect the increase of such imports; and whether it will be possible to impose import duties and quota restrictions without reference to the Communities.

Mr. Emery: Figures from 1963 to 1970 are published under Division 85 in the Annual Statement of Trade and, for 1971, in the December, 1971, issue of the Overseas Trade Statistics. These show that imports from the EEC were £20 million in 1971. The current full rates of import duty range from 4p to 20p per pair or 5 to 10 per cent ad valorem. Entry into the EEC is expected to stimulate trade generally in both directions. After entry, we will not be able to impose duties and quota restrictions without reference to the Communities.

Mr. Lewis: Some hon. Members with constituencies in which footwear factories are situated already complain of unemployment and difficulty. Do I take it from that reply that we shall find that shoes from Italy and other Common Market countries will be able to come here without question, without import duties or restrictions of any sort, and that this country cannot say or do anything about it and only the EEC countries can?

Mr. Emery: It is not possible at present to make valid estimates of the likely growth of trade in footwear, whether imports or exports. The industry carried out a study of the matter at a conference in December. To deal with serious and persistent difficulties, Article 135 of the Treaty of Accession allows the Commission to authorise protective measures during the transitional period.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Does not my hon. Friend agree that employment in the footwear industry would be best secured by a healthy export trade to the EEC countries, which will be helped by our entry into the EEC?

Mr. Emery: I have every reason to believe that that will be one of the factors to benefit the footwear industry.

Mr. Heffer: Is not the matter slightly more complicated than the Minister suggested? For example, the EEC has an agreement with Spain and I understand that certain companies are making arrangements to have footwear produced in Spain, have it brought into the EEC and from there brought into this country, which will create all sorts of difficulties for workers in the footwear industry in this country, who in any case in certain areas like Merseyside already face unemployment problems.

Mr. Emery: I have not the specific information about Spain which the hon. Gentleman requests. I am willing to look into the matter and write to him.

Upper Clyde Shipyards

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on developments relating to the future of the yards in the Upper Clyde.

Mr. Emery: Mr. Harbin of the Marathon Manufacturing Company has


agreed to come to London for further discussions about his company's possible acquisition of the Clydebank yard and will be meeting tomorrow my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development.

Mr. Douglas: I welcome that reply. Can we have an assurance from the Minister that the top management of Govan Shipbuilders is not likely to undergo further changes and that the disquieting Press reports about Mr. Kenneth Douglas can be denied and that he will give full-time attention to stabilising employment in Govan Shipbuilders Ltd.?

Mr. Emery: The Government will take all possible steps within the existing powers to encourage the purchase of the yard. This is what hon. Members on both sides want. I assure the House that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development has given, is giving, and will continue to give every consideration to this matter.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that full details of any agreement which may be reached with Mr. Harbin of the Marathon Manufacturing Company will be placed in the Library of the House, including full details of monitoring procedure for any sums provided to that company?

Mr. Emery: I will certainly draw that question to the attention of my right hon. Friend. Obviously some of this may be commercial information, and there are problems which might arise in that regard. I will consider the matter fully.

BANGLADESH

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the hon. Members concerned, and to help Thursday's debate, I should now like to answer Questions Nos. 32, 33, 34, 36 and 37 together.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development told the House on 6th March, the Government at that time had pledged £3 million for relief in Bangladesh and had signed agreements

providing for non-project aid totalling £4·8 million. Of the sum offered for relief, £1 million has been paid in cash to the United Nations and £200,000 to the International Committee of the Red Cross. The balance has been spent on Bailey bridging, ferry boats and equipment, marine engines and spare parts, trucks and Decca navigational aids, which the Bangladesh Government told us were their priority requirements. The bulk of these supplies have been dispatched; in addition, a small team of Royal Engineers is in Bangladesh advising the authorities on the erection of the Bailey bridges.
Our principal anxiety had been that there would be a shortage of food in Bangladesh leading to famine. Fortunately, according to the Bangladesh Government the necessary supplies of food grains for the next three months have been assured. They are not, therefore, asking for immediate further assistance in the form of food supplies. The paramount needs now are to improve the distribution of the available supplies and to provide seed and fertilisers for the next crop. These considerations have dictated the make-up of the aid supplied under our £3 million pledge.
In view, however, of the continuing need, exemplified in the United Nations Secretary-General's appeal to the countries of the world for assistance, the British Government have decided to set aside a further £6 million for relief and rehabilitation in Bangladesh, to be spent on purposes to be agreed with the Bangladesh Government and the United Nations Relief Operation, Dacca. We have in mind in particular a further cash payment to the United Nations, the repair of the Hardinge and King George VI bridges, the purchase of rice to supplement food supplies later this year and the supply of 12 sea trucks particularly asked for to meet an urgent request by the United Nations Secretary-General

Mr. Dalyell: We all welcome the extra £6 million. May I ask the Foreign Secretary about exactly the terms of future aid to the United Nations? In relation to the Biharis, will he say precisely what are the terms of the proposition that we have put to the International Red Cross; because in answer to a Question earlier this afternoon he gave the impression that it was earmarked as aid to the Biharis?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We have already made one payment of £200,000. We are from time to time assisting the Red Cross in its action concerning the Biharis. If the Red Cross comes back to us, we shall consider giving further assistance.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I am sure that the £6 million will be deeply appreciated. Did the Foreign Secretary see the statement by Sheik Mujib last month that Bangladesh still needs buses, trucks, boats, fuel and technicians to distribute the food? Could we not help in that regard, first for the sake of Bangladesh and, secondly, and perhaps selfishly, because it would help employment in Britain as well?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Some of the methods of assistance mentioned by the hon. Gentleman can no doubt be financed out of the £6 million. The immediate and most pressing need, so the Secretary-General of the United Nations told me when he was here the other day, was the "sea trucks". We are getting them out to Pakistan immediately.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I am sure that the whole House will wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has already done for Bangladesh and on making the extra £6 million available. Is there any chance of improving the financing of current payments, particularly in relation to ECGD cover, because there is still a hold-up there? Help in this direction would affect employment in Britain and assist relief in Bangladesh. There is some difficulty about ECGD cover at the moment, and this could be sorted out with my right hon. Friend's assistance.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I hope that a Bangladesh consortium will shortly be formed. I will consider what my right hon. Friend has said on the question of ECGD cover and whether there are any defects which can be removed.

Mr. Barnes: In view of the large number of smaller bridges which were damaged in Bangladesh, apart from the large bridges like Hardinge and King George VI, is it possible for a large part of the £6 million to be earmarked almost immediately for the comparatively small repairs, if indeed that is what the Bangladesh Government want, on the smaller bridges, as the first priority is to such a great extent improving land communications so that food and

materials can be moved about within the country?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We should like to take the advice of the Bangladesh Government and of the experts on the spot on this point. The Royal Engineers who are out there will be of great assistance in this respect, too. I will bear the hon. Gentleman's point in mind.

Mr. Torney: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, apart from seeds, the Bangladesh also needs supplies of cotton yarn, nylon, nets and livestock to get the country going again? What steps could be taken within the £6 million in this direction?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I rather hope that a large number of other countries, and also more countries than last time, will help with subscriptions towards Bangladesh's various needs. It is for the Bangladesh Government to estimate their priorities. We will do our best to help them.

Mr. Wilkinson: What proportion of the total aid announced to Bangladesh does Her Majesty's Government's contribution constitute? How much is Russian aid? How muck is Eastern European aid? In that connection, have the Bangladesh Government requested Her Majesty's Government to give assistance with the clearing of ports, or do they intend to rely entirely on Russian Navy personnel?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There have been reports that Chittagong and Chalna are not operating, but we are now told that they are operating at about 85 per cent. efficiency. The Soviet Navy has undertaken to clear the rest of the obstruction.

Mrs. Hart: We very much welcome the Secretary of State's announcement of the increased finance to be made available. It is excellent that Her Majesty's Government are responding in this way. I hope that, as the right hon. Gentleman says, this will encourage other countries to make increased contributions.
Having said that, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? First, what reports has he had from Sir Robert Jackson, who has recently been put in charge of the United Nations operations, about how far help is needed with sea trucks and water transport in general, and how far does he envisage that the British


Government will be able to help with this most pressing need for the distribution of food?
Second, what reports has the right hon. Gentleman had about possible difficulties of supplies of local currency? Very often in these situations there is enough food but those who need it do not have the currency to buy it. This was a great difficulty in the Nigerian situation. What does the right hon. Gentleman know about this?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have not had a direct report from Sir Robert Jackson, but I discussed with the Secretary-General what were the priority needs after he had talked with Sir Robert Jackson, and what we were asked to supply at once was sea trucks. We have done so and are continuing to do so. For the rest, we shall concentrate on different aspects of communications.
I should like to look into the currency question. I have not been brought up against this problem in Bangladesh, but it was a factor in Nigeria. I should like to look into it and write to the right hon. Lady.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (DISPUTE)

Mr. Prentice: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order follows on the failure of the Secretary of State for Employment to make a statement on the rail situation today. I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether some arrangement may be made for such a statement to be made.
I realise that this is not a request that one would normally make in the form of a point of order, but in the last hour or two there have been two extraordinary developments which make this a unique situation. One is that successive statements from the railway authorities have indicated that the very great hardship suffered by thousands of commuters this morning is likely to be very much worse tonight. The authorities have said, for instance, that only a very few trains will be running from London stations. This is an emergency situation requiring a statement from the Government.
The second is the statement in the mid-day edition of the Evening Standard saying that the ultimatum issued by Mr. David Binnie to the Southern Region staff had the full approval of the Cabinet.
If this is so, it seems to us that the Secretary of State is now sabotaging the cooling-off period for which he himself applied a few days ago.
In this situation, ought the right hon. Gentleman not to make a further statement to the House now, or at any rate within the next few hours?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): May I respond to that point of order in a helpful way?
I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. He does not think that it is wise to make a statement at this juncture. [Hon. Members: "Why not?"] It is a matter for Ministers, and always is in these circumstances. However, he is anxious to make a statement to the House at the earliest moment which he considers advisable when he has some definite news to give to the House, and I will keep in touch with him and convey the feeling of hon. Members.
There is absolutely no foundation whatever for the report in the Evening Standard that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned; it is not true.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Why was the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) allowed under the guise of a point of order to make the statement he made? It was clear from the opening words that it was not a point of order. If he wished to raise that matter, he should have asked for permission to put a Private Notice Question. That would have been the proper parliamentary way to put this important matter to the Minister concerned.

Mr. Prentice: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I made the case to you and the House that there were urgent developments in the last hour or two which meant that the normal procedure was not available. I hope that there will be an early statement. The House is entitled to know whether the expected statement will be made today or tomorrow. In any event, I shall certainly submit a Private Notice Question for tomorrow.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We had better leave it there.

HOUSING FINANCE BILL (BUSINESS COMMITTEE)

Motion made, and Question,
That the Report [12th April] of the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

Division No. 138.]
AYES
[3.45 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Fidler, Michael
Kinsey, J. R.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Kirk, Peter


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Kitson, Timothy


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Knox, David


Astor, John
Fortescue, Tim
Lane, David


Atkins, Humphrey
Foster, Sir John
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Awdry, Daniel
Fowler, Norman
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fox, Marcus
Le Merchant, Spencer


Balniel, Lord
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)


Batsford, Brian
Fry, Peter
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Bell, Ronald
Gardner, Edward
Loveridge, John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Gibson-Watt, David
Luce, R. N.


Benyon, W.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
MacArthur, Ian


Bitten, John
Glyn, Dr. Alan
McCrindle, R. A.


Biggs-Davison, John
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
McLaren, Martin


Blaker, Peter
Goodhart, Philip
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Goodhew, Victor
McMaster, Stanley


Body, Richard
Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Boscawen, Robert
Gower, Raymond
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maddan, Martin


Bowden, Andrew
Gray, Hamish
Madel, David


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Green, Alan
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Braine, Bernard
Grieve, Percy
Marten, Neil


Bray, Ronald
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mather, Carol


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Maude, Angus


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Grylls, Michael
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Bruce-Gardyne,J.
Gummer, Selwyn
Mawby, Ray


Bryan, Paul
Gurden, Harold
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Buck, Antony
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Miscampbell, Norman


Burden, F. A.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire.W)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Moate, Roger


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Carlisle, Mark
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Monro, Hector


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Haselhurst, Alan
More, Jasper


Cary, Sir Robert
Hastings, Stephen
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Chapman, Sydney
Havers, Michael
Morrison, Charles


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hawkins, Paul
Moyle, Roland


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hay, John
Murray, Ronald King


Churchill, W. S.
Hayhoe, Barney
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hicks, Robert
Neave, Airey


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Higgins, Terence L.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Cockeram, Eric
Hiley, Joseph
Normanton, Tom


Cooke, Robert
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Nott, John


Coombs, Derek
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Onslow, Cranley


Cooper, A. E.
Holland, Philip
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Holt, Miss Mary
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Cormack, Patrick
Hordern, Peter
Osborn, John


Costain, A. P.
Hornby, Richard
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Critchley, Julian
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Howell, David (Guildford)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj-Gen. James
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Percival, Ian


Dean, Paul
Hunt, John
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Deedes. Rt. Hn. W. F.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pink, R. Bonner


Dixon, Piers
James, David
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Drayson, G. B.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Jessel, Toby
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Dykes, Hugh
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Eden, Sir John
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Jopling, Michael
Raison, Timothy


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Emery, Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Redmond, Robert


Eyre, Reginald
Kershaw, Anthony
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Farr, John
Kimball, Marcus
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Fell, Anthony
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Fanner, Mrs. Peggy
King, Tom (Bridgwater)

put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee).

The House divided: Ayes 286. Noes 214.

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Waddington, David


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Walder, David (Clltheroe)


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Ridsdale, Julian
Stokes, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Wall, Patrick


Rost, Peter
Tapsell, Peter
Walters, Dennis


Royle, Anthony
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Ward, Dame Irene


Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Warren, Kenneth


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Tebbit, Norman
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Scott, Nicholas
Temple, John M.
Wiggin, Jerry


Sharples, Richard
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Simeons, Charles
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Sinclair, Sir George
Tilney, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Skeet, T. H. H.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Worsley, Marcus


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Trew, Peter
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Soref, Harold
Tugendhat, Christopher
Younger, Hn. George


Speed, Keith
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin



Spence, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sproat, Iain
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Stainton, Keith
Vickers, Dame Joan
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Stanbrook, Ivor






NOES


Abse, Leo
Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Albu, Austen
Eadie, Alex
Lipton, Marcus


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edelman, Maurice
Lomas, Kenneth


Allen, Scholefield
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Loughlin, Charles


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McBride, Neil


Armstrong, Ernest
Ellis, Tom
McCartney, Hugh


Ashley, Jack
Evans, Fred
McElhone, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Ewing, Kenry
Mackenzie, Gregor


Atkinson, Norman
Faulds, Andrew
Mackie, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fisher,Mrs.Doris (B'ham.Ladywood)
Mackintosh, John P.


Barnes, Michael
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Bornett, Guy (Greenwich)
Foley, Maurice
McNamara, J. Kevin


Beaney, Alan
Foot, Michael
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield E.)


Bell, Ronald
Ford, Ben
Marks, Kenneth


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Forrester, John
Marquand, David


Bidwell, Sydney
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marsden, F.


Bishop, E. S.
Freeson, Reginald
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Gourlay, Harry
Meacher, Michael


Bradley, Tom
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mendelson, John


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mikardo, Ian


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow. Proven)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Millan, Bruce


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Milne, Edward


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hamling, William
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Molloy, William


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hardy, Peter
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cant, R. B.
Harper, Joseph
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Carmichael, Nell
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Moyle, Roland


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hattersley, Roy
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Murray, Ronald King


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Heffer, Eric S.
Oakes, Gordon


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Horam, John
O'Halloran, Michael


Cohen, Stanley
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Malley, Brian


Concannon, J. D.
Huckfield, Leslie
Oram, Bert


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Orbach, Maurice


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Orme, Stanley


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oswald, Thomas


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hunter, Adam
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Paget, R. T.


Dalyell, Tam
Janner, Greville
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pardoe, John


Davidson, Arthur
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Pavitt, Laurie


Davies, Denzil (Lianelly)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pendry, Tom


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Prescott, John


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, William (Rugby)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn.Sir Geoffrey
Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Delargy, H. J.
Kaufman, Gerald
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kelley, Richard
Richard, Ivor


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Russell
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Doig, Peter
Lomond, James
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dormand, J. D.
Latham, Arthur
Roper, John


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rose, Paul B.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leonard, Dick
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Driberg, Tom
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Sandelson, Neville







Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Watkins, David


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Weitzman, David


Short,Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)
Swain, Thomas
Whitehead, Phillip


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Whitlock, William


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Sillars, James
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Silverman, Julius
Tinn, James
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Skinner, Dennis
Tomney, Frank
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Small, William
Torney, Tom
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Tuck, Raphael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Spearing, Nigel
Varley, Eric G.
Mr. John Golding and


Spriggs, Leslie
Wainwright, Edwin
 Mr. James Wellbeloved.


Stallard, A. W.
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)



Steel, David
Wallace, George

Question accordingly agreed to. Report considered accordingly.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Resolution.

put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee).

The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 223.

Maddan, Martin
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Madel, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Marten, Neil
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Tebbit, Norman


Mather, Carol
Raison, Timothy
Temple, John M.


Maude, Angus
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Maudling, Rt. Hn Reginald
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Mawby, Ray
Redmond, Robert
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J
Reed Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Tilney, John


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Miscampbell, Norman
Renton Rt. Hn. Sir David
Trew, Peter


Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire.W)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tugendhat, Christopher


Moate, Roger
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Ridsdale, Julian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Montro, Hector
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Montgomery, Fergus
Rost, Peter
Vickers, Dame Joan


More, Jasper
Royle, Anthony
Waddington, David


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm
Russell, Sir Ronald
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Morrison, Charles
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Mudd, David
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Murton, Oscar
Scott, Nicholas
Wall, Patrick


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Sharples, Richard
Walters, Dennis


Neave, Airey
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Ward, Dame Irene


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Warren, Kenneth


Normanton, Tom
Simeons, Charles
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Nott, John
Sinclair, Sir George
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Onslow, Cranley
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wiggin, Jerry


Oppenheim, Mrs. Salty
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington
Wilkinson, John


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Soref, Harold
Winterton, Nicholas


Osborn, John
Speed, Keith
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Spence, John
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Sproat, Iain
Woodnutt, Mark


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stainton, Keith
Worsley, Marcus


Parkinson, Cecil
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R


Percival, Ian
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Younger, Hn. George


Peyton, Rt Hn. John
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)



Pike, Miss Mervyn
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Pink, R. Bonner
Stokes, John
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Mr. Bernard Weatherill


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tapsell, Peter





NOES


Abse, Leo
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Gourlay, Harry


Albu, Austen
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dalyell, Tam
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Allen, Scholefield
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Davidson, Arthur
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Ashley, Jack
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Ashton, Joe
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hamling, William


Atkinson, Norman
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Deakins, Eric
Hardy, Peter


Barnes, Michael
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Harper, Joseph


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Delargy, H. J.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Beaney, Alan
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dempsey, James
Hattersley, Roy


Bidwell, Sydney
Dolg, Peter
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Bishop, E. S.
Dormand, J. D.
Hoffer, Eric S.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Horam, John


Booth, Albert
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Driberg, Tom
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Bradley, Tom
Dunn, James A
Huckfield, Leslie


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Edelman, Maurice
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Buchan, Norman
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hunter, Adam


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Ellis, Tom
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Evans, Fred
Janner, Greville


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Ewing, Harry
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Cant, R. B.
Faulds, Andrew
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Carmichael, Neil
Fisher,Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm.Northfield)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Foley, Maurice
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Foot, Michael
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Ford, Ben
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cohen, Stanley
Forrester, John
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Concannon, J. D
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Kaufman, Gerald


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Freeson, Reginald
Kelley, Richard


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Kerr, Russell


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gordon Walker. Rt. Hn. P. C
Lamond, James







Latham, Arthur
Oakes, Gordon
Small, William


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
O'Halloran, Michael
Smith, John (Lanarkshire. N.)


Leonard, Dick
O'Malley, Brian
Spearing, Nigel


Lestor, Miss Joan
Oram, Bert
Spriggs, Leslie


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Orbach, Maurice
Stallard, A. W.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Orme, Stanley
Steel, David


Lipton, Marcus
Oswald, Thomas
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Lomas, Kenneth
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth. Sutton
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Loughlin, Charles
Paget, R. T.
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


McBride, Neil
Palmer, Arthur
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


McCartney, Hugh
Pannell, Rt. Hn Charles
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


McElhone, Frank
Pardoe, John
Swain, Thomas


Mackenzie, Gregor
Pavitt, Laurie
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mackie, John
Pendry, Tom
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Mackintosh, John P
Pentland Norman
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Tinn, James


McNamara, J. Kevin
Prescott, John
Tomney, Frank


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield E.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Torney, Tom


Marks, Kenneth
Price, William (Rugby)
Tuck, Raphael


Marquand, David
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Varley, Eric G.


Marsden, F.
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wainwright, Edwin


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Richard, Ivor
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wallace, George


Meacher, Michael
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Watkins, David


Mellish Rt. Hn. Robert
Roper, John
Weitzman, David


Mendelson, John
Rose, Paul B.
Whitehead, Phillip


Mikardo, Ian
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Whitlock, William


Millan, Bruce
Sandelson, Neville
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Milne, Edward
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Molloy, William
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)



Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Moyle, Roland
Sillars, James
Mr. John Golding and


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silverman, Julius
 Mr. James Wellbeloved.


Murray, Ronald King
Skinner, Dennis

Question accordingly agreed to.

Following is the Report of the Business Committee:


That the allotted days which under the Order [13th March] are given to the Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below and, subject to the provisions of that Order, each part of the Proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, he brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

TABLE


Allotted day
Proceeding
Time for conclusion of proceedings


First day
…
New Clauses and New Schedules and Amendments to Clauses 1 to 11
7.00 p.m.




Amendments to Clause 12 and Schedule 1





Amendments to Clauses 13 to 17 and Schedule 2
8.30 p.m.




Amendments to Part II and Schedules 3 and 4





Amendments to Part III
10.00 p.m.




Amendments to Part IV up to and including Clause 46





Amendments to Clauses 47 and 48 and Schedules 5 and 6
11.00 p.m.


Second day
…
Amendments to Part V
7.00 p.m.




Amendments to Parts VI to VIII, and Amendments to Part IX up to and including Clause 92
9.00 p.m.




Amendments to remainder of Part IX and Schedules 7 to 11
11.00 p.m.


Third day
…
Third Reading
11.00 p.m.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING FINANCE BILL

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 3

REGISTRATION OF SERVICE CHARGES

(1) In the case of unfurnished tenancies, service charges shall be determined separately and shall be registered with the rent officer on application by the landlord;
(2) the rent officer shall, either if he so wishes or if the tenant so requests, ask for professionally audited accounts in respect of the services to be provided and shall satisfy himself that such services are provided;
(3) a right of appeal shall lie to the Rent Assesment Panel on the cost of services at the request of either the tenant or landlord and for this hearing audited accounts shall be produced;
(4) no joint application for registration of service charges shall be permitted and it shall be illegal to charge more for services than the registered figure;
(5) section 47 of the Rent Act 1968 shall be amended accordingly.—[Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Clause is a way of plugging one of the gaps left by the Labour Government in their Rent Acts of 1965 and 1968, which introduced the principle of fair rents. It falls into three main parts. First, we wish to establish the opportunity for tenants to see separate figures for services and for them to be audited. Secondly, the Clause seeks to ensure that appeal against service charges can be made to the rent assessment panel. Thirdly, it proposes that there shall be no joint registration in respect of service charges.
I contend that there is a great need for the registration of service charges. Tenants are coining under much pressure with regard to service charges, particularly in cases in which three-year or five-year leases, which were granted under the Act introduced by the Labour Government, are coming to an end. Many tenants wish

to be able to contest the details of service charges. In Greater London, in particular, the control of rented unfurnished accommodation has passed from the hands of the large insurance companies, like the Prudential and the Pearl, and the large reputable property companies, like London County Freehold and Leasehold Properties, into the hands of other companies which are operating within the terms of the law passed when the Labour Party was in office. I wish to establish that the tenant has the opportunity of contesting not merely the fair rents but the service charges in detail.
Since I spoke on Second Reading I have had well over 100 letters, which I have passed on to my colleagues, from people, mainly in Greater London, who are very worried about what is happening about service charges. What the Clause seeks to do, therefore, is to make the rent officer put down in his register that proportion of fair rent which he attributes to service charges.
I have in mind a case in my own constituency, a tenant in a mansion block of flats who lived on the fourth floor; there was supposed to be a lift but she had no lift for a year. When she approached me I told her she should go to the rent officer and that this would be a fact that the rent officer might take into account in ordering a reduction of the rent. I may be told that the tenant has a remedy at law, but we do not always want to employ solicitors. By and large, the rent officer system established by the Labour Party is working fairly well, particularly if one has the court of appeal in the rent assessment panel beyond that.
I have in mind a second case of a rent fixed by the rent officer on the understanding that certain repairs would be carried out and certain services put in. They have not been, and yet the tenant is not in a position to ascertain what proportion of his fair rent is attributable to those services. I refer to services such as central heating, constant hot water, lifts, porterage, and stair carpets. I may be told by my hon. Friend on the Front Bench that certain powers already exist either in this Bill or in the Acts to enable the tenant to find this out. All I can say about that is that if these provisions exist they are unknown to the majority of tenants, certainly to the citizens' advice bureaux with which I have spoken.
In the Clause we ask for the service accounts to be audited if the tenant requests or if the rent officer wants; or, and this is more important, if the tenant or landlord contests the adjudication of the rent officer and takes the costs of the service charges to the rent assessment panel, we ask that as a matter of automatic form those service charges shall be in the form of audited accounts. I feel that if this were done it would be possible for the rent officer or the rent assessment panel to strike out some items which are likely to creep in. One is already hearing of certain landlords creating management companies and of substantial amounts of expenses being pushed into the management companies and those expenses then being passed on as a proportion of the service charges to the tenants.
I repeat, because it is necessary—because so much has been misrepresented about the Bill—that everything I am saying and all the evils about which I am talking stem from the last two Acts passed by the Labour Party when it was in power.
There are cases of long leases where services charges appear. I have in mind an instance where the annual charge in the lease was £106, and the tenant bought his head lease, and then within a month the figure went up to £250. There is no redress of any kind. Of course, the tenant will be told: caveat emptor: he should negotiate to make sure the right clause exists in the lease. Because of the abject failure of the last Government there is a shortage of rented accommodation in the major cities of this country, and, as a result of that, the position is still that the tenant cannot insist on the clauses he would like in his lease but must take the clauses which the landlord otters, whether the tenant is willing or not, or he will not be able to buy the property. This is a fact which nothing can gainsay, and, as I have said, it stems from the last Government's housing policies in the 1965 and 1968 Acts.
4.15 p.m.
The third prong of the Clause is that there should be no joint registration of the service charges. I wish it had been possible for new Clause 1 to have been selected; it sought to forbid joint application for the registration of fair rents,

and to make consequential amendment of the Rent Act, 1968, but I appreciate that one must be very grateful for having had at least one new Clause selected.
I am very worried at the sort of information which is reaching some of us in London about unscrupulous agents acting with or without the knowledge of their landlords, agents who go along to tenants whose leases are coming to an end, and say "If you will agree with us that the fair rent should be"—say, £600—"we will register this jointly with the rent officer. If you do not, we shall have to ask for £700, and our information from comparable flats is that the rent officer is fixing about £650. So you will be worse off if you do not accept joint registration."
I gather that rent officers are confirming about 70 per cent. of joint registrations and overturning about 30 per cent. I am talking purely of Greater London. I have no figures for outside Greater London.
This sort of joint registration procedure is a worry, and it is unfair to the elderly tenant and the tenant who has no legal advice available to him or her. These problems are of particular interest and importance in central London, particularly places like Hampstead where I have heard of about 500 flats which have gone from what I call good landlords to various other forms of landlord, as a direct result of the housing legislation of the last Government.
I am extremely worried about the problems of these tenants and wish to see whether under the Bill they can be safeguarded, not merely by the rent allowances to which many of them will be entitled, but by registration of service charges so that they can see exactly what services are covered and can know instantly whether or not they are getting the services for which they have paid, and can go automatically to the rent officer and identify the elements making up that proportion of their charges.
Briefly, therefore, I appeal to the Minister and to the House to accept the Clause, even if in some respects it is a duplication of what may appear in the Bill or in previous legislation, even if it is considered by whoever will speak for the Government as not really necessary, even if he should say "It is all right; its provisions are there, and tenants can


go to solicitors." In my submission, that is not what is wanted. What we have to try to do is to see that people know exactly what their rights are, and if they can be spelt out by separate registration of service charges then, psychologically, my right hon. and hon. Friends will be doing the right sort of thing in convincing private tenants that the Bill really is in their interests. Therefore, I urge acceptance of the Clause as an outward sign that the Government are now trying to repair the errors of the last Government.

Mr. Frank Allaun: It would be a great mistake to believe that the Bill hits only council tenants. It severely hits controlled tenants of private landlords. Indeed, it will also hit those who want to buy their own houses, because, as a result of the Bill, so many will otherwise find themselves faced with higher rents, and, with nothing to show for paying them at the end of the period, that they will be forced into the market to try to buy houses, even if they cannot really afford to do so. The effect of this on house purchase prices is obvious; they will increase even faster than they did last year.
The Clause, which we support, concerns private landlords and particularly tenants living in service flats. These are mostly the more well-to-do tenants or tenants living in better quality property. If the rents of poorer properties are raised then rents for better quality property will in sympathy also be increased. These people will usually be unable to secure any rent rebate, and, if they are forced to buy, they will face much stiffer purchase prices.
All sorts of tricks, some outside the law and some just within it, are being practised on these tenants. The trick of service charges is a dominant one and arises from an obvious loophole in the Act. Property companies are not content with the increase given under the 1968 Act, which raised rents on average to two and a half times the previous controlled level, but are raising service charges as well. The landlords are not poor widows and men in a small way of business but vast and profitable finance companies. For instance The Times has exposed the First National Finance Corporation, one of whose tricks was a standard lease giving tenants no control over service charges. Other great

property companies, such as Freshwater, have made £9 million out of tenants in a few years. The tenants are being squeezed by a variety of means until the pips squeak.
For instance, property companies buy up blocks of flats and then press the tenants to get out so that the flats can be converted into furnished dwellings or hotels or sold off. Another example is for a property company to make an agreement with one tenant for a rent of £1,000 a year when the other tenants are paying £500 a year and then to go to the rent officer and use the £1,000 rent as an argument for raising the rent of the other flats. Some big property companies do not observe the rents which have been registered, and often the new tenants do not know that they are being overcharged.
As a result of this we are seeing the revolt of the middle-class tenants in such places as Hampstead, Westminster, St. John's Wood, Chelsea and Paddington. They are forming lively tenants' associaations, and we welcome this. There have been angry meetings in Committee Rooms in this House, even angrier sometimes than those held by council tenants. The service charges are arousing great indignation. One tenants' association secretary says this:
We are getting charged for cleaners whom we never see and whom we doubt exist.
Another secretary says:
Service charges in some places are more than the rents. We don't know how much we are being charged for services. Tenants are in a vulnerable position and cannot complain.
Yet another tenants' association representative says:
In service charges, under the heading of management charges, there is nothing to stop property companies including even the fees they are paying lawyers and surveyors to present their cases against us before the rent assessment committees.
Service charges are sometimes doubled and even trebled. There is a block of flats at 20 Abbey Road, St. John's Wood, which is handled by Leslie Marsh and Co. There used to be 153 flats in the block; there are now only 24. What has happened to the remainder? They have been converted into furnished flats at rents up to 70 guineas a week. The service charge for tenants in these unfurnished flats has been more than doubled in four years. I have the


accounts with me—not audited, of course—from which it can be seen that the service charges in four years have gone up from £12,500 to £29,500 a year. A typical example is that for a three-room flat in this block the service charge has been increased from £110 to £232 a year. There are no audited accounts. How can the rent officer or the rent assessment committee check the service charges?
These property companies employ highly-paid lawyers and surveyors. The new Clause contains some safeguard, but inside the Labour movement there is a growing feeling that the only effective safeguard against people who have such highly skilled legal advice as to be able to get round most of the rules is to permit and encourage local authorities to take over the properties and run them themselves.
In its statement on the part of the Bill dealing with private tenants the Trades Union Congress says:
A transfer of private rented dwellings into the local authority sector would resolve the present difficulty of how to grant subsidies to tenants in private rented accommodation, without merely providing landlords with additional profits.
The Clause contains the very least protection which should be given to tenants who are in this position. I hope that Conservative hon. Members opposite, many of whom, significantly, represent marginal seats—such as the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg)—will have the courage of their convictions and support the Clause. We shall support it in the Lobby. It will not compensate for all the misery which is being inflicted on tenants, but it will help to safeguard the victims from some of the dirtier tricks to which they are being subjected.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Tugendhat: After the excellent introduction to the Clause given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg), there is little that can be said to expand on the problems which he put forward. It is significant that all the Conservative Members of Parliament representing central London constituencies—not all of which, I am happy to say, are marginal—have put their names to the Clause, for

this is a problem which is causing great hardship in central London
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamp stead spoke about London as a whole As he has covered that aspect, I will con fine my remarks for the time being to the City of Westminster, which is the part of London I know best. I could give a great many examples, but I will give one typical example, by no means the most extreme, of a well-known block of flats in London where the service charge has risen by 48 per cent. in two years. Certainly we have had rising prices in the last two years, but they have not risen at the rate of 24 per cent per annum.
The block of flats which I have in mind is occupied by people who can seek and pay for extremely good and expensive legal advice, but one still finds unaccounted for items as large as £480. Tenants are unable to secure from the landlords any reasonable explanation for this expenditure. This is not an isolated case, but is a deep-rooted problem which affects the whole of the City of Westminster and much of Greater London This practice is of relatively recent origin, and this is why it must be pressed upon the Minister at this point. We look to him to explain the situation.
Within the last three or five years many of the very large blocks of flats in the middle of London have passed from the hands of well established landlords into the hands of a small group of very large and, I fear, not entirely responsible landlords. These sales have occurred only in the last three to five years. There are a great many tenants whose leases are coming up for renewal for the first time since the change of ownership took place. Consequently, the pressure is being felt particularly acutely at the moment. The problem will remain as acute as it for at least another three to five years. This is why the problem is so urgent.
Another reason for urgency is that as a result of earlier legislation there has been a change in the relationship between the tenants of these large blocks of flats and their landlords. When the great majority of tenants were on short leases there was a certain identity of interest between landlord and tenant. Both parties had very much the same kind of interest in maintaining the standard of services


and in ensuring that services which were paid for were rendered. But at present a high proportion of the flats in these blocks are on 75 or 99-year leases and, therefore, the identity of interest between landlord and tenants has been broken. When the landlord has sold a great many flats in a block on a long lease, he is not necessarily concerned with maintaining the level and quality of services, but is much more concerned with gouging as much money as he can out of the unfortunate tenants. Not only is he frequently concerned with getting as much money as he can out of the tenants, but often he is unwilling to accept representations from the tenants.
The Times rendered a useful service in drawing attention to the situation in a block of flats in my constituency, Ashley Gardens, and pointing to the difficulties which tenants had been experiencing with the First National Finance Corporation. It is encouraging that as a result of the publicity in that story those tenants might well achieve a greater success in their representations in future than they did in the past. But not all tenants have the good fortune to have their problems taken up by The Times, and in any case not all tenants will be able to make use of the opportunities that arise in the efficient manner as did the tenants in Ashley Gardens.
The second problem relates to the fact that there is not an identity of interest between tenant and landlord. Furthermore, landlords frequently refuse to accept the legitimate aspirations of the tenants in regard to consultation, information and things of that nature.
The third point which must be made is that the activities of the agents are not always above suspicion. A year ago I had occasion in this House to raise the problems of some of my constituents in Warwick Square and neighbouring areas. They were not rich people, but were relatively poor people who were suffering at the hands of certain agents. I find that the same problem exists higher up the economic scale. Agents sometimes apparently increase their own remuneration without explanation, and tenants are unable to secure information about why this has been done. Landlords seem to take no great interest in the matter, and tenants find themselves having to pay. Furthermore, agents

sometimes omit to inform purchasers that the service charge takes no account of external renovations. Tenants who have been in occupation of a flat for four or five years find themselves faced with a demand to pay a service charge four or five times the normal annual level.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead has said, it is all very well to say caveat emptor, but this is a problem ordinary people without legal and suspicious minds are not necessarily going to realise. It will be of great assistance if the Minister can say how he proposes to deal with this matter in the context of the present legislation and arrangements.
The familiar problem of gazumping also applies to service charges. Even after signing contracts, tenants may find themselves having to meet a substantial increase in service charge because they did not read the fine print—or, even if they did, they may have been so desperately anxious to get accommodation that they have had to accept the position.
In the City of Westminster we have experienced every sort of landlord. We have some landlords, such as the Grosvenor Estates, which have run their properties for generations, and indeed for centuries, with a high degree of responsibility, taking account of the interests of all sections of the community. But in recent years we have seen these new large financial groups, which are apparently devoid of social responsibility, moving into the area and causing great hardship and concern and worry to many people in the basic matter of housing. It is no part of our case to mount an attack on property companies or on landlords in general. We know that some property companies and some landlords—certainly this applies to Westminster—are highly responsible, decent people to whom the community is grateful and of whom it is not resentful. It is a small group of large companies which is engaging our attention.
We feel that the answer to this problem is by no means municipalisation of housing. The people who write letters to me complaining about service charges are concerned not with the municipalisation of houses but with securing their own rights. Therefore, rather than pursue the barren course of municipalisation, the


Government would be well advised to look for ways of ensuring that tenants and residents are able to buy the blocks of flats themselves. If a situation arises in which one large financial group acquires a block of flats and then a month or even a year later re-sells at a great profits to another large financial group, what ought to happen is that before the sale is allowed to go through the tenants and residents should be given the opportunity to buy the blocks of flats, provided that they are able to raise the money.
This is the area at which we should be looking. We should consider allowing tenants to safeguard their own interests rather than move towards any form of municipalisation. Therefore, we need to know how the Government propose to ensure that tenants and residents know their rights with regard to service charges so that they appreciate that their rights are properly protected.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I should like to take the opportunity of congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) on introducing this important Clause, and I was pleased to hear the welcome given to it by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) when speaking from the Opposition Front Bench.
This is particularly a central London problem, and from my own experience in South Kensington I fully endorse what my hon. Friend said. My hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat) has evidently had very much the same experience in his area of matters which are, unfortunately, all too common in the Borough of Kensington. It is necessary for the Government to act, and to act now.
Some existing service charges agreements are extremely one-sided and very adverse to tenants. What is more, a large number of new agreements are being entered into which are both adverse to the tenant and decidedly unacceptable as legal agreements. Many tenants are in such haste to avail themselves of the opportunity of purchasing their flats that they are all too ready to overlook the warnings of their solicitors, and sometimes they are chivvied into immediate acceptance of offers of unfurnished flats

on the ground that the price will go up in a few days if they do not give their assent.
Sometimes repairs are to be carried out by an associated company of the landlord. Sometimes disputes are to be settled by a nominee of the landlord. Sometimes service charges can be made to cover substantial improvements. At first sight this may not seem an imposition on the tenants. But what often happens is that the tenants are obliged to pay for the block of flats in which they live to be transformed into a much more expensive type of accommodation. Then, when their leases fallin, they find themselves out of their depth, and they give vacant possession to the landlord, who therefore gets the improvements for nothing. In other cases the charges may be reasonable but the services are not being carried out. In other cases they are being carried out deliberately in such a way as to provoke tenants into giving landlords vacant possession. I can think of more than one case where almost certainly that is going on.
I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to recognise that there is a serious need for legislation now about service charges. Whether the phraseology that my hon. Friend has chosen is ideal, I am not able to judge. If it is not, possibly the Department will be able to change it so as to achieve what both sides of the House would like to see.
My only regret is that the Clause does not cover flats when they are converted to furnished service rooms—what are called "creeping hotels" in my constituency. This is probably an inevitable omission since it is difficult to bite off such a large subject in one Clause. However, I draw attention to this problem. I hope that it is very much in the minds of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat) said that not all the signatories to this Amendment represented marginal constituencies. I urge him to consider that they may find themselves in that position if this Bill is unamended.
The hon. Gentleman said that it was not part of his case to attack private landlordism in general. However, he


made a significant indictment of the practices of many financial companies which are playing such a large part in private landlordism at present. I hope he will spare some compassion for council tenants when we come to debate other matters contained in the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman has underlined that, as the law stands at present, by giving a blank cheque to private land lords when it comes to determining ser vice charges——

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Did the hon. Gentleman say "as the law stands at present", meaning the present law passed by his own Government?

Mr. Davis: Yes. I am not defending the situation. It is why we on this side support the Clause. I hope that the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) will press it to a Division, because that is the only way to take effective action. A gigantic ramp is being practised by these companies, and something has to be done to stop it. I am only a little troubled lest the Clause may not be sufficiently forceful to do it.
Too much emphasis is placed upon the professional auditing of landlord's accounts. One knows that in inter-company transactions audited accounts may prevail, but these may not be a significant matter in determining the reasonableness of charges, and it is to that that a rent officer must address his mind. However, if the Government favour the Clause in principle, I have no doubt that this matter can be put right at a later stage.
In my view, the essence of the matter is how we can ensure that the charges imposed are reasonable, and the significance of profesionally audited accounts is not of major concern. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept the Clause and that the law will be changed. Certainly something has to be done to stop these professional sharks who have made such a tremendous plucking from these unfortunate people.

4.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey

Finsberg) was able to introduce his Clause. I know his serious concern and his great experience of problems of this kind which exist in his constituency. He has devoted a great deal of time to endeavouring to deal with them. I know, too, that his concern is shared strongly by other hon. Friends of mine who represent London constituencies, including my hon. Friends the Members for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat) and Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams).
The debate gives me an opportunity to clear up a number of misunderstandings. I want to stress that for protected tenancies—that is, tenancies in the private sector with which this Bill is concerned—the provisions of the Rent Act meet the situation already. A fair rent registered by a rent officer includes service charges, and the rent officer fixes a rent which is fair for all that is provided under the tenancy. It is very important for thousands of small people in London and other parts of the country to realise this.

Mr. David Weitzman: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that in fixing the fair rent the rent officer does not differentiate the amount in respect of services, and that that is the object of the Amendment?

Mr. Eyre: That is not entirely accurate. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me, I shall come more specifically to that point in a few moments. It is of great importance that tenants in London and elsewhere should realise that the fair rent registered by the rent officer includes service charges, and that the rent officer must take account of all that is provided for under the tenancy.
The rent officer has to consider what rent, including the services and everything else, the tenancy would command in a reasonably balanced market. In practice, in order to gauge what amount should reasonably be added to the basic accommodation rent most rent officers like to see the landlord's accounts for the services.

Mr. Fank Allaun: How can the rent officer know whether those accounts are honest if they have not been audited? Clearly, some property companies have vivid imaginations in this direction.

Mr. Eyre: I am very much aware of that practical point. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall consider it in some detail and come to a conclusion.
The position of the rent officer is that he wants to see the landlord's accounts for the services unless the landlord himself produces them. The rent officer is bound to consider them if they are produced by the landlord. However, I should stress that the rent officer is not bound to accept these costs as true and accurate. Nor does he have to accept that what the landlord is spending on services is necessarily being spent in a reasonable way. Rent officers can, and do, drastically prune a landlord's service cost schedules where they consider that the services provided by the landlord would not have commanded rentals of those amounts were there a well balanced market in privately rented dwellings. So, in fixing a fair rent the rent officer normally holds a consultation at which the tenant can bring out any feature of the service charges that he does not like.
Subsection (1) of the Clause requires the service charges to be separately determined and registered. The rent officer, when registering a fair rent, is required by Clause 25(5) to register the amount of that rent which is fairly attributable to the provision of those services. I think that is the point which concerned the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman). It is that part of the rent which is attributable to the provision of services which do not count for rent allowances. Services of this kind include heating and hot water. Sometimes services will be provided of a type which it is not intended should qualify for rent allowances—for example, the. cost of lift services in high-rise blocks. I mention this because often difficulties are quoted about assessing the cost of the lift service.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: Did the hon. Gentleman refer to Section 25 of the 1968 Act?

Mr. Eyre: Clause 25(5) of the Bill. So those services, such as the lift, which are essential for the enjoyment of the tenancy will be included in the assessment of rent for which a rent allowance would be paid. But heating and lighting, and so on, will be shown separately in the register.
There is a leading High Court decision, referred to as the Lannon case—Metropolitan Properties Co. Ltd. v. Lannon, decided in 1968—to which the attention of all the rent officers has been drawn, encouraging rent officers to note in the register the amount attributed to the services provided. The Department has recently reminded rent officers of this decision, and it is confident that, where these other services are provided, the amount of the fair rent fairly attributable to them will continue to be indicated in the register.

Mr. Clinton Davis: If the story is as favourable as the Minister is seeking to depict, how does he explain the ramps to which his hon. Friends have alluded during the debate?

Mr. Eyre: I am trying to make clear the position as it is and as it will operate under the Bill. If a citizen is not securing his rights, I am extremely sorry. I am trying to spell out in detail those ways in which, under the strength of this Bill, he will be able to safeguard his position and deal with his particular problem.
I was referring to the Lannon case and stressing that the ruling in that case had been drawn to the attention of the officers. We are confident that, where these other services are provided, the amount of the fair rent fairly attributable to them will continue to be indicated in the register. Any tenant who is worried about his service charges but has not yet got a rent registered can apply to the rent officer at any time for registration of a fair rent.

Mr. Weitzman: Is the Minister saying that there is an obligation on a rent officer to make a note of the amount attributable to services? It is merely a recommendation that he should do so. There is no obligation.

Mr. Eyre: I am saying that when the rent officer makes a decision on the total rent payable for the premises, in making that decision and entry upon the register he should be aware of the High Court's decision and of the recommendation of the Department that that should be carried into effect. It will be seen that the rent officer has a duty to distinguish the entry in the register between that part of the tenancy where there is a rebatable rent and the other part of the tenancy where


the provision of services is covered. That is the position that the tenant is entitled to rely upon, and that is the system that we are to operate.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: If the Department is so confident that this is being done, may I ask whether the Minister can tell us, having carried out the checks, how many rent officers are doing this in detail in their registers?

Mr. Eyre: I am explaining the system which applies. I am sorry to hear that cases have come to my hon. Friend's notice where it may be possible that there is a degree of misunderstanding and the proper drill has not been carried out. I know that he will co-operate with the Department in seeing that every possible step is taken to ensure that the proper procedure is carried out, because it is of great importance that the tenants should have the full protection available to them under the terms of the Bill.

Mr. A. W. Stallard (St. Pancras, North): I am trying to follow the argument being presented by the Minister. I did not serve on the Committee, but the then Under-Secretary of State, according to the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings, made a similar point:
The kind of non-optional service charges that might be allowed as rent are passenger and service lifts and their maintenance".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 27th January, 1972; c. 1049.]
He goes on to list some examples that seem to be in contradiction to what the Minister has just said, or seem to make for more misunderstanding, unless, he can clear it up.

Mr. Eyre: Like the hon. Gentleman, my only knowledge of the proceedings in Committee has been gained by reading great volumes of the OFFICIAL REPORT. Therefore, I think there is a possibility of misunderstanding. However, I want to make clear that what I have explained is the position. It may be that sometimes in the course of those long debates in Committee difficulties of communication arose in the late hours. I stress that what I have said is an accurate account of the proper position. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead referred to work which was specified but not carried out. The in-

creased rent would not be properly chargeable unless the work specified was carried out.
Subsection (2) of the new Clause provides for professionally audited accounts to be provided at the instance of the rent officer or the tenant. The rent officer is entitled to make any inquiries he thinks fit to determine the fair rent. It is true that if the landlord refuses to provide audited accounts, he cannot be forced to do so; but the rent officer will then draw his own conclusion. The landlord will be damaging his case to the rent officer by non-production. If the tenant is dissatisfied with the rent officer's decision he can appeal to the assessments committee, which has power to require the parties to supply such further information as the committee may reasonably require.
Coming back to the rent officer stage, in some cases the rent officer may decide that the cost is not relevant; for example, where the heating is provided by an inefficient and expensive system whose cost will obviously be greater than the amount within the fair rent which is fairly attributable to the services. But, generally, proper accounts of the costs are made available by the landlord in rent officer proceedings, since it is in the landlord's interest to establish his case for those costs.
As regards the service charges of tenancies within the Bill—that is, within the £400 rateable value in London—the rights of the tenants are safeguarded, and I hope that all tenants will take full advantage of their rights and their protection under the Bill. If they do, it will be possible to deal with their difficulties.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Latham: The hon. Gentleman has not appreciated the considerable significance of the earlier intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard). I urge the Minister to refer to column 1049 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings and remind himself that Clause 25(5), to which he has referred, opens with the words
In order to assist the authority to give effect to this section".
The assistance to the authority is concerned with the eligibility or otherwise of that element of the rent which is paid in


respect of services for the purposes of rent rebate.
I urge the Minister to grasp firmly the point that one is here talking about two categories of service charges, those charges which could not reasonably be excluded from the rent—the Minister's predecessor gave as an example a lift in a multi-storey building—and those which the former Minister described as optional extras, which would be a different kind of service charge in respect of which rent allowance would not be expected to apply.
The point that I am trying to emphasise is that it is clearly the intention of the new Clause not simply to identify, as in Clause 25(5), that element in respect of which a rebate would not be payable, but to identify the whole of the service charge element within the total paid by the tenant. That is an important distinction, and it makes nonsense of the suggestion that what the new Clause requires is provided in the subsection to which reference has been made. That subsection is there for different purposes, and has a limited effect.

Mr. Eyre: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I know that this is an important subject in London, and I want to try to reassure him. I cannot account for any detailed differences in the debate in Committee, but I want to try to reassure him about the situation.
The rent officer is concerned with the totality of the rent liability, the total terms of the tenancy, the services to be provided and the rent to be paid in the whole. It is the rent officer's duty to approve that. Secondly, within that the rent officer has to make an allocation as to one part of the tenancy where there are appended services, such as lifts, which should provide essential services to the tenancy and be available for rent rebate purposes.
The rent officer must then go on and make a distinction with regard to other services provided within the totality of the rent.

Mr. Latham: Where does it say that?

Mr. Eyre: I am explaining the procedure to be carried out by rent officers under the authority of the Bill. In the second part the rent officer's duty is to

deal with the registration of those other services, the non-rebatable services. I stress that the total sum payable in respect of that which is offered under the tenancy comes under the purview of the rent officer.
I now come to subsection (3) of the new Clause.

Mr. Stallard: I am still not clear about the situation. I do not know whether what the Minister has just said contradicts what was said by his predecessor. In Committee the former Under-Secretary of State said:
broadly, the definition is that which I gave earlier".—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 27th January, 1972; c. 1050.)
That is different from the definition which the Minister has just given. Would he check those two?

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman puts me in a difficulty in trying to enter a debate which took place some weeks ago.

Mr. James Hill: May I help my hon. Friend? His predecessor said in Committee that he would have to make regulations about services, that these regulations would be subject to debate in the House, and that hon. Members would then be able to raise any issues they wished. Perhaps that is the way in which the debate should proceed?

Mr. Eyre: I am fortified by what my hon. Friend has said, but it is not only that. The words used by my hon. Friend in Committee were carefully considered before the explanation which I have given of the precise situation was decided to be delivered. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that the position is a good one for tenants, provided they take advantage of their rights under the Bill.
Subsection (3) provides for a right of appeal to the rent assessment committee on the cost of services. There is, however, already a right of appeal to the rent assessment committee, which covers any matter relevant to the determination of the fair rent. If accounts were not already on the case papers and the rent assessment committee considered that it needed them—as it normally would—it would no doubt require the landlord to send them. The committee would give all


such evidence a critical appraisal, and it would clearly be in the landlord's interest to ensure that his accounts were prepared in a way which stood up to this scrutiny.
Subsection (4) would prohibit joint applications for rent registration of such charges, and would make it illegal to charge more for services than the registered figure. Service charges cannot, however, be assessed by the rent officer except as part of the assessment of the whole rent. Any joint application by landlord and tenant would therefore have to be a joint application for a fair rent for the whole of what is provided under the tenancy. This confirms the point that I was making to the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham).
The Government appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and others of my hon. Friends have sought, in the first new Clause to be debated, to abolish the joint application procedure. It is believed that one of the particular difficulties which my hon. Friends have in mind is the case where, on re-letting to a new tenant, the landlord asks the incoming tenant to join him in an application to the rent officer for the registration of a fair rent. This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing, since the rent officer is precluded from registering any rent which he does not consider to be a fair rent, and, where there has been no previous registration, the registration of a rent is an assurance to the tenant that he is not being overcharged.
Again, the function of the rent officer is particularly important. One has the new, incoming tenant and the reference to the rent officer, but he can approve only what is a fair rent, so that the registration of that fair rent is an assurance to the tenant that he is not being overcharged.
There is some public misunderstanding about the rent officer's rôle. Some people have been heard to express the view, which is erroneous, that any rent agreed between landlord and tenant can be registered simply with the rent officer, whether or not the rent officer considered it to be a fair rent. I take this opportunity gladly to put it clearly on the record that the rent officer will not register any rent unless he is satisfied that it is fair within the statutory criteria.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead made the point that a little over 70 per cent. of joint applications are accepted by the rent officer. This is because over the seven years of operation this has become well established and understood as a procedure, and it is not difficult for landlords to know that, in these circumstances, the proposals coming forward will meet the approval, within the range of his experience, of the rent officer.
I very much appreciate the difficulties of which my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat) and others spoke concerning tenants in the higher levels of rent. These are the long leases and other unprotected tenancies. In these cases the rent officer would have no jurisdiction to determine a fair rent for the tenancy. Any question therefore of scrutinising the amount of the rent attributable to service charges could only be a matter of deciding whether service charges provided for separately from the basic reserved rent were, in fact, properly and fairly charge able within the terms of the lease. This is quite different from the question rent officers have to decide for protected tenancies and would involve detailed examination of leases and accounts, which does not seem appropriate for rent officers.
Many leases make their own provision for arbitration of disputes as to service costs. To empower rent officers to decide these questions might cause confusion in cases of this sort. As regards long leases at ground rents, these are generally more akin to owner-occupation than to rack rent tenancies, and the terms and covenants should be properly settled, with proper legal advice, at the time of purchase.

Mr. Tugendhat: My hon. Friend should realise that we have raised the question with which the new Clause is concerned in conjunction with the substance of new Clause No. 5. He should also realise that in large blocks of flats in Central London one finds cheek by jowl flats with rateable values of just below and just over £400, some with long leases and some with short leases—all in the same block, indeed, on the same staircase. This is why we ask him to consider a more realistic level than the


one proposed. If he were to meet us on this the sort of anomalies which he is now discussing would not arise.

Mr. Eyre: I appreciate the point my hon. Friend is making. He will appreciate that it is always difficult to draw the line at a point which will please everyone but it must be drawn somewhere. It is aggravating to live in a block of flats and to find that the rateable value of a nearby flat is more advantageous than one's own. I fear that this difficulty would be encountered wherever we drew the line, which means that I cannot meet my hon. Friend on this point.
In regard to these higher level tenancies and owner-occupier purchases, I stress the importance of taking legal advice at an early stage because the correct determination of the formula which governs the calculation and the service rent is vital to the purchaser or lessee under a high lease. As I listened to my hon. Friends discussing this subject I had the strong impression that the function of the solicitor in this respect was extremely worth while and that people would be well advised to pay his modest fee.
5.15 p.m.
On the question of audited accounts, it is often suggested that where an unprotected tenancy or long lease contains any provision for the rents to be varied in accordance with the cost of providing services, the landlord should be statutorily obliged to provide itemised and audited accounts of such costs at the tenant's request.
The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) who I regret is temporarily not in his place, asked a Question about this in January of this year and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) has a similar Question on the Order Paper. The reply is that this is a matter of getting proper legal advice at the outset. It follows, therefore, that a proposal of the kind suggested is not included in the new Clause. However, I stress the importance of taking proper legal advice at a very early stage.
A lease may contain a provision to the effect that the certificate of the landlord's agent as to the amount expended

on services shall be conclusive This does not oust the jurisdiction of the courts as to any questions of law relating to any covenant to pay any amount for service costs.

Mr. John Mendelson: Most tenants are reluctant to go to court every time they disagree with an excess service charge submitted by the landlord. Would it not therefore be better to protect the tenant by putting the necessary provision in this legislation?

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman was not in his place when I dealt with this in detail. I explained that the tenancies within the Bill were protected by the functions of the rent officer. I was going beyond that to deal with the more difficult cases of higher rent levels and owner-occupiers in more expensive property than the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Would there not be a danger, if one did as my hon. Friend suggested and met the modest lees of those in his profession, that by the time one persuaded the landlord to change the offending clause in the lease the purchase price might have gone up by 20 times the amount of the fee one was having to meet?

Mr. Eyre: I appreciate that values are changing rapidly in London, but I feel that this fever is working itself out. It is partly accountable, of course, by the fact that private ownership took a set-back between 1968 and 1970. It is now recovering from that situation.
Returning to the question of amounts and costs, I stress that though the lease may contain a clause under which the landlord's agent can certify something, that is not conclusive and it can be questioned at law. If any provision of this nature were construed by the courts as ousting their jurisdiction on questions of law, it would be held to be void as contrary to public policy, so that that sort of restriction could not be properly enforced.
The question of audited accounts is continuing to be considered. Strong arguments have been adduced today for putting into the Bill any provision which could reasonably be added to strengthen the hands of tenants whose service charges were being increased and who


wished to see the landlords' accounts showing how the service costs had been calculated.
Our study of this question will proceed urgently and it is my aim that such a provision, if found practicable, should be added to the Bill in the Lords. I cannot at this stage make any commitment that such a provision will prove to be practicable, but I shall in any event welcome an opportunity, either here or in the Lords, to report progress on this matter.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: In that undertaking, is my hon. Friend speaking of the protected or the unprotected tenant?

Mr. Eyre: I have tried to explain that, in my view, the situation of protected tenancies is wholly sound; they are completely protected by the rent officer procedure which I have described. [Hon. Members: "No."] Therefore, my remarks with regard to audited accounts relate in the main to tenancies at the higher rent levels and the owner-occupier lessees in respect of which other complaints have been made. [Hon. Members: "No."] However, I shall take into account the point which, I think, my hon. Friend has in mind and see whether the whole provision regarding audited accounts could be extended across the field.
As I say, it depends on whether this proposal can be made practicable. Urgent consideration is at present being given to what can be done on a practical basis. I hope that, if it does prove practicable, something can be done in the other place to meet many of the points which have been raised by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: Could my hon. Friend go a little further with his assurance? Some of us who very much support the Bill still feel worried by what he has said, and we should like him to go a little further.
My hon. Friend has made clear that there is no obligation upon a rent officer to register service charges separately. Will he extend his assurance to say that, in looking into the matter again, he will look at that possibility as well? That would reassure me.

Mr. Eyre: I must emphasise that there is a duty on rent officers with regard to protected tenancies, but, to reassure him, I will say that the guidance—I use that

word; I cannot put it as high as instructions—under which the rent officer operates will be looked at as regards the practice to be followed. I do not think that my hon. Friend need have any fear on that score. I shall certainly consider as sympathetically and as helpfully as possible the other point made on the wider issue of accounts.

Mr. Anthony Crosland: We are working under a severe guillotine, and there are many other subjects which hon. Members on both sides want to come to, so I shall be brief. First, I welcome the Under-Secretary of State to our proceedings. He has made a judicious choice of the time at which to join us, with 57 sittings of the Committee behind him and only two days of Report in front of him. We are only sorry that he gave such a complacent and negative reply on this new Clause.
The hon. Gentleman pointed to the legal protection under existing law now open to the protected tenant, and, as for the unprotected tenant, he said that he could always consult his solicitor. But the position is not satisfactory, and it has been shown by speeches on both sides that it is not. We all know that considerable exploitation in this sector is going on. There is substantial evidence that that exploitation has been on the increase in the last two years, and some of it takes the form of either grossly inflated or, sometimes, patently dishonest service charges.
It is quite unsatisfactory to leave the matter where it is. The new Clause has practical drawbacks and limitations, but it would effect at least a marginal improvement in the situation, and, since a marginal improvement is better than none, I reaffirm that we on this side will vote for it.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I noted the support given to the new Clause by the Opposition. I welcome it from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland). It is less welcome when it comes from the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), who, we have noted, proposes to municipalise all private housing—which doubtless, will helpus, as it did in 1955.
Having heard what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State had to say about


unprotected tenants, I am grateful, and I happily accept his assurance that he will look again to see whether owner-occupiers and others at rateable values over £400 can be helped either in future legislation or when the Bill goes elsewhere.
I accept that the wording of the new Clause may not be satisfactory, but I fear that my hon. Friend's answer is equally unsatisfactory. With respect, I have heard it elsewhere. Its theory is excellent, but it does not work in practice. The addition of the new Clause would not bring the Government down, but I believe that it would be a piece of justice, even if more apparent than real, as my

Division No. 140.
AYES
5.28 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Delargy, H. J.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Albu, Austen
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hunter, Adam


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dempsey, James
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur (Edge Hill)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Doig, Peter
Janner, Greville


Armstrong, Ernest
Dormand, J. D.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Ashley, Jack
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire. E.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Ashton, Joe
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Atkinson, Norman
Driberg, Tom
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Duffy, A. E. P.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Barnes, Michael
Dunn, James A.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dunnett, Jack
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Eadie, Alex
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Edelman, Maurice
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kaufman, Gerald


Bidwell, Sydney
Ellis, Tom
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Bishop, E. S.
English, Michael
Kelley, Richard


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Evans, Fred
Kerr, Russell


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Ewing, Henry
Lamond, James


Booth, Albert
Faulds, Andrew
Latham, Arthur


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Leadbitter, Ted


Bradley, Tom
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Leonard, Dick


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Buchan, Norman
Foley, Maurice
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham. N.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Foot, Michael
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Ford, Ben
Lipton, Marcus



Forrester, John
Lomas, Kenneth


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Longden, Gilbert


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Freeson, Reginald
Loughlin, Charles


Cant, R. B.
Garrett, W. E.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Carmichael, Neil
Gilbert, Dr. John
McBride, Neil


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Golding, John
McCartney, Hugh


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McElhone, Frank


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Gourlay, Harry
McGuire, Michael


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)



Cohen, Stanley
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mackie, John


Concannon, J. D.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mackintosh, John P.


Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hamling, William
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Cronin, John
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Marks, Kenneth


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hardy, Peter
Marquand, David



Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marsden, F.


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hattersley, Roy



Dalyell, Tam
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Heffer, Eric S.
Meacher, Michael


Davidson, Arthur
Horam, John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Davies, Denzil (Lianelly)
Hornsby-Smlth.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Mendelson, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mikardo, Ian


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Millan, Bruce


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Huckfield, Leslie
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Milne, Edward


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

hon. Friend said. The vital point is that each service charge on the registration of rent should be separately registered and separately visible.

For my part, therefore, I would press the new Clause. If the wording is unsatisfactory—my draftsmanship is not equal to that of the Department—I shall be perfectly happy if my hon. Friend wishes to amend it elsewhere, should the House accept it. However, in this rough and ready form, the new Clause should in my view, be accepted.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:

The House divided Ayes 251 Noes 247.

Molloy, William
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Swain, Thomas


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rhys Williams, sir Brandon
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Richard, Ivor
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Moyle, Roland
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roper, John
Tinn, James


Murray, Ronald King
Rose, Paul B.
Tomney, Frank


Oakes, Gordon
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Torney, Tom


O'Halloran, Michael
Sandelson, Neville
Tuck, Raphael


O'Malley, Brian
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Urwin, T. W.


Oram, Bert
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Varley, Eric G.


Orbach, Maurice
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wainwright, Edwin


Orme, Stanley
Short, Mrs. Rénee (W'hampton.N. E.)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Oswald, Thomas
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wallace, George


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Watkins, David


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Sillars, James
Weitzman, David


Padley, Walter
Silverman, Julius
Wellbeloved, James


Paget, R. T.
Skinner, Dennis
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Palmer, Arthur
Small, William
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Whitlock, William


Pardoe, John
Spearing, Nigel
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Pavitt, Laurie
Stainton, Keith
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Pentland, Norman
Stallard, A. W.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Perry, Ernest G.
Steel, David
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Woof, Robert


Prescott, John
Stoddart, David (Swindon)



Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Price, William (Rugby)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Rankin, John
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Mr. Tom Pendry.


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)






NOES


Adley, Robert
Crouch, David
Hastings, Stephen


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Havers, Michael


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hawkins, Paul


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj.-Gen. James
Hay, John


Astor, John
Dean, Paul
Hicks, Robert


Atkins, Humphrey
Dlgby, Simon Wingfleld
Higgins, Terence L.


Awdry, Daniel
Dixon, Piers
Hiley, Joseph


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Drayson, G. B.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Batsford, Brian
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Holland, Philip


Beamish, Col. Sir Tutton
Dykes, Hugh
Hordem, Peter


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Eden, Sir John
Hornby, Richard


Benyon, W.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Bitten, John
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.N.)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Emery, Peter
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Blaker, Peter
Eyre, Reginald
James, David


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Farr, John
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Body, Richard
Fell, Anthony
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Boscawen, Robert
Fanner, Mr. Peggy
Jessel, Toby


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fidler, Michael
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Bowden, Andrew
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bray, Ronald
Fookes, Miss Janet



Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fowler, Norman
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Brocklebank-Fowlar, Christopher
Fox, Marcus
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fry, Peter
Kinsey, J. F.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Kitson, Timothy


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Gardner, Edward
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Buck, Antony
Gibson-Watt, David
Knox, David


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Lane, David


Burden, F. A.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Goodhart, Philip
Le Merchant, Spencer



Goodhew, Victor
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Carlisle, Mark
Gower, Raymond
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Loveridge, John


Cary, Sir Robert
Gray, Hamish
Luce, R. N.


Chapman, Sydney
Green, Alan
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Grieve, Percy
MacArthur, Ian


Chichester-Clark, R.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McCrindle, R. A.


Churchill, W. S.
Grylls, Michael
McLaren, Martin


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Macmillan.Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)


Clegg, Walter
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Cooke, Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maddan, Martin


Coombs, Derek
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Madel, David


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Cormack, Patrick
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Marten, Neil


Costain, A. P.
Haselhurst, Alan
Mather, Carol







Maude, Angus
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Redmond, Robert
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Mawby, Ray
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon S.)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tilney, John


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire.W.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Trew, Peter


Moate, Roger
Ridsdale, Julian
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Monro, Hector
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
van Straubenzee, W. R


Montgomery, Fergus
Royle, Anthony
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


More, Jasper
Russell, Sir Ronald
Vickers, Came Joan


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Waddington, David


Morrison, Charles
Sharples, Richard



Mudd, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Murton, Oscar
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Sinclair, Sir George
Walker-Smith, Rt Hn. Sir Derek


Neave, Airey
Skeet, T. H. H
Walters, Dennis


Normanton, Tom
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Warren, Kenneth


Nott, John
Soref, Harold
Weatherill, Bernard


Onslow, Cranley
Speed, Keith
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Oppenheim,Mrs. Sally
Spence, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Wiggin, Jerry


Osborn, John
Sproat, Iain
Wilkinson, John


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Nicholas


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Parkinson, Cecil
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh W)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Woodnutt, Mark


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Stokes, John
Worsley, Marcus


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stuttatord, Dr. Tom
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Prior,Rt. Hn. J. M. L
Tapsell, Peter
Younger. Hn. George


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)



Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Quennell. Miss J. M.
Tebbit, Norman
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Raison, Timothy
Temple, John M
 Mr. Michael Jopling.

Question accordingly agreed to

Question put, That the Clause be added to the Bill:—

Division No. 141.]
AYES
[5.40 p.m


Abse, Leo
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Albu, Austen
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Gourlay, Harry


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Dalyell, Tam
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Ashley, Jack
Davidson, Arthur
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Atkinson, Norman
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hamling, William


Barnes, Michael
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Deakins, Eric
Hardy, Peter


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Delargy, H. J.



Bennett. James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hart. Rt. Hn. Judith


Bidwell, Sydney
Dempsey, James
Hattersley, Roy


Bishop, E. S.
Doig, Peter
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dormand, J. D.
Heffer, Eric S.


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Douglas. Dick (Stirlingshire. E.)
Horam, John


Booth, Albert
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Driberg. Tom
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bradley, Tom
Duffy, A. E. P.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Dunn, James A.
Huckfield, Leslie


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Edelman, Maurice
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Buchan, Norman
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Ellis, Tom
Hunter, Adam


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
English, Michael
Irvine,Rt. Hn. SirArthur(Edge Hill)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Evans, Fred
Janner, Greville


Campbell, 1. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Ewing, Harry
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas



Faulds, Andrew
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Cant, R. B.
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Carmichael, Neil
Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Fletcher. Raymond (Ilkeston)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Foley, Maurice
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Foot, Michael
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Cohen, Stanley
Ford, Ben
Kaufman, Gerald


Concannon, J. D.
Forrester, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Conlan, Bernard
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Kerr, Russell


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Garrett, W. E.
Lamond, James


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Latham, Arthur


Cronin, John
Golding, John
Leadbitter, Ted

The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 245.

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
O'Halloran, Michael
Small, William


Leonard, Dick
O'Malley, Brian
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Oram, Bert
Spearing, Nigel


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Orbach, Maurice
Spriggs, Leslie


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Orme, Stanley
Stallard, A. W.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Oswald, Thomas
Steel, David


Lipton, Marcus
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Lomas, Kenneth
Padley, Walter
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Loughlin, Charles
Paget, R. T.
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Palmer, Arthur
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


McBride, Neil
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


McCartney, Hugh
Pardoe, John
Swain, Thomas


McElhone, Frank
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


McGuire, Michael
Pavitt, Laurie
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee. E.)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Pentland, Norman
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Mackie, John
Perry, Ernest G.
Tinn, James


Mackintosh, John P.
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Tomney, Frank


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Prescott, John
Torney, Tom


McNamara, J. Kevin
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Tuck, Raphael


Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Price, William (Rugby)
Urwin, T. W.


Marks, Kenneth
Rankin, John
Varley, Eric G.


Marquand, David
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Wainwright, Edwin


Marsden, F.
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints;


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Richard, Ivor
Wallace, George


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Roberts. Albert (Normanton)
Watkins, David


Meacher, Michael
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Weitzman, David


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Roper, John
Wellbeloved, James


Mendelson, John
Rose, Paul B.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mikardo, Ian
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Millan, Bruce
Sandelson, Neville
Whitlock, William


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Milne, Edward
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mitchel, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Molloy, William
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Woof, Robert


Morris, Rt Hn. John (Aberavon)
Sillars, James



Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silverman, Julius
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Murray, Ronald King
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Oakes, Gordon

Mr. Tom Pendry.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Cockeram, Eric
Goodhew, Victor


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cooke, Robert
Gower, Raymond


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Coombs, Derek
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Gray, Hamish


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Cormack, Patrick
Green, Alan


Astor, John
Costain, A. P.
Grieve, Percy


Atkins, Humphrey
Crouch, David
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Awdry, Daniel
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
 Gummer, J. Selwyn


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Batsford, Brian
Dean, Paul
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Benyon, W.
Dixon, Piers
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Haselhurst, Alan


Bitten, John
Drayson, G. B.
Hastings, Stephen


Biggs-Davison, John
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Havers, Michael


Blaker, Peter
Dykes, Hugh
Hawkins, Paul


Boscawen, Robert
Eden, Sir John
Hay, John


Bossom, Sir Clive
Edwards. Nicholas (Pembroke)
Heseltine, Michael


Bowden, Andrew
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hicks, Robert


Bray, Ronald
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Higgins, Terence L.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Emery, Peter
Hiley, Joseph


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Eyre, Reginald
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Farr, John
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Bruce Gardyne, J.
Fell, Anthony
Holland, Philip


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hordern, Peter


Buck, Antony
Fidler, Michael
Hornby, Richard


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Burden, F. A.
Fletcher-Cooke. Charles
Howell, Raiph (Norfolk, N.)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Fortescue, Tim
James, David


Carlisle, Mark
Fowler, Norman
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fox, Marcus
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Cary, Sir Robert
Fry, Peter
Jessel, Toby


Chapman, Sydney
Gardner, Edward
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gibson-Watt, David
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Chichester-Clark, R
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Churchill, W. S.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kimball, Marcus


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Goodhart, Philip
King, Tom (Bridgwater)







Kinsey, J. R.
Neave, Alrey
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Kitson, Timothy
Normanton, Tom
Stoddart-Scott, Col, Sir M.


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Nott, John
Stokes, John


Knox, David
Onslow, Cranley
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Lane, David
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Tapsell, Peter


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Osborn, John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Le Merchant, Spencer
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Tebbit, Norman


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Temple, John M.


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Parkinson, Cecll
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Thomas, John Stradilng (Monmouth)


Loveridge, John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Luce, R. N.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon. S.)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Tilney, John


MacArthur, Ian
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


McCrindle, R. A.
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Trew, Peter


McLaren, Martin
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Raison, Timothy
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Macmillan. Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Redmond, Robert
Vickers, Dame Joan


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton. E.)
Waddington, David


Maddan, Martin
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Madel, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Marples, Rt Hn. Ernest
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir Davis
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Marten, Neil
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Walters, Dennis


Mather, Carol
Ridsdale, Julian
Warren, Kenneth


Maude, Angus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Weatherill, Bernard


Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Royle, Anthony
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mawby, Ray
Russell, Sir Ronald
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wiggin, Perry


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sharples, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Winterton, Nicholas


Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire,W.)
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Moate, Roger
Sinclair, Sir George
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Monro, Hector
Skeet, T. H. H.
Woodnutt, Mark


Montgomery, Fergus
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Worsley, Marcus


More, Jasper
Soref, Harold
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Speed, Keith
Younger, Hon. George


Morrison, Charles
Spence, John



Mudd, David
Sproat, Iain
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Murton, Oscar
Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Mr. Michael Jopling

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Crosland: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This has been a very humiliating moment for the Government, a moment which has demonstrated that the Bill is becoming increasingly unpopular, even with their own back benchers.
I have two questions. First, is there no moral obligation of any kind on hon. Members opposite who voted in favour of the new Clause to have the courage to vote in favour of its incorporation in the Bill? Secondly, in view of the defeat for the Government on the first vote and the extraordinarily narrow victory on the second—the House expressed its clear view of the merits of the new Clause on the first vote—what is the Minister's intention for the future of the new Clause?

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): The Government's intentions are clear. My hon. Friend made it clear that he was very much in sympathy with the intentions and the motivation of the new Clause,

but was of the opinion that the position of protected tenants was already covered by the Bill, and he volunteered and offered to consider whether we might amend the Bill in another place to cover the position of unprotected tenants. Of course we shall not only fulfil that obligation, if it proves practicable, but, I hope and trust, take full account of the views expressed in the debate, notably by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg), who moved the new Clause, and the first vote.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead went out of his way to say that he did not think that his new Clause was absolutely the last word on the matter, and he invited us to see whether we could improve it. In accordance with the undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, we shall see whether we can meet the powerful arguments which have been put forward from both sides of the House when the Bill goes to another place.

Mr. William Molloy: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be as brief as


I can. The House listened to an exposition of the new Clause by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg), and it was then supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
After listening to the arguments, the House made up its mind and voted, and as a result the new Clause was read a Second time. We are now in the situation that the House has expressed an opinion on the validity of the new Clause, but has been refused the opportunity to add it to the Bill, because pressure has been applied to hon. Members opposite who voted in one sense in the first Division, but who did not maintain their courage in the second. That does not deny the fact that the House has expressed itself as having no confidence in the Minister, and we ought to have an opportunity to discuss that situation. The Minister's assurances did not satisfy his hon. Friends.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): There is no point of order to me. The Chair does not vote in any case, still less tell hon. Members how to vote.

Mr. Crosland: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the first time, the House has had the chance to express its collective view of an important part of the Bill, and it was frustrated in the second Division only by the machinations of the Government Whips. Therefore, will the Minister now, for the first time, recognise that there are strong feelings not only on this side of the House against the Bill, and will he show a much more compromising attitude during future stages?

Mr. Amery: Mr. Amery rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that I can hear any more points of order on this issue. This is a day when the guillotine is operating and every minute that is taken now is taken from the allotted time.

New Clause No. 6

RENT ALLOWANCES TO OTHER PRIVATE TENANTS

(1) The provisions of section 19 of this Act shall also apply to tenants under a contract (in this section called a 'furnished tenancy') to which section 70 of the Rent Act 1968 applies or would apply but for subsection (3)

of that section but subject to the provisions of the following subsections and the expression 'private tenant' in section 19 of this Act shall be construed accordingly.
(2) The date of bringing into operation of the allowance scheme shall be 1st April, 1973.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulation make provision for determining what portion of the rent payable under a furnished tenancy is attributable to the use of the premises (as distinct from the provision of services and the use of furniture) and which will qualify as the rent in respect of which rent allowance is payable.
(4) Regulations under subsection (3) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.—[Mr. Douglas-Mann.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to consider new Clause No. 2—"The extension of rent allowances to furnished lettings".

Mr. Douglas-Mann: New Clause No. 6 would remove one of the worst anomalies of a Bill bristling with anomalies. It would ensure that rent allowances were payable to furnished as well as unfurnished tenants.
The effect of the Bill as it stands will be that rents and prices will be substantially increased throughout the country. Rents of properties to let privately in central city areas will escalate sharply. Many tenants who now have some degree of security, some degree of control over rents, controlled tenants, will become decontrolled, for many premises will become vacant as a result of the Bill and will become available to let furnished as a result. Rents will escalate.
The people in the worst position to bear the effects of the Bill will be furnished tenants, who are to receive no assistance to meet increased rents. Both sides of the House will acknowledge that the present situation isimmensely unsatisfactory, particularly in the stress areas of our cities. No one can dispute that furnished tenants in the private sector are suffering the greatest hardship.
I hope that the Minister will be able to report on the outcome of the working party that he mentioned when we discussed this matter in Committee. I hope that he will be able to go further than


he did earlier this afternoon in responding to pressure and urgings from both sides of the House, and there were urgings from both sides when the matter was considered in Committee. I know that he has received many representations from many authorities and organisations, particularly Shelter, that the new Clause is urgently required to defeat the worst anomalies of the Bill, and I trust that he will accept it.
There are 500,000 tenants in furnished accommodation and they are suffering the worst housing hardship. We have a great deal of information about the situation in the furnished sector from the surveys carried out by the Francis Committee and from the appendices to its report. We know that in the stress areas of the cities furnished tenants spend on average about one third of their pay on rent, that the average income of furnished tenants is about £870 a year, and that their average rent is about £290 a year. We know that they occupy the worst accommodation and suffer more from overcrowding and pay more rent per room and that the average furnished tenant in the stress areas pays four times the gross value of his accommodation whereas only a minute proportion of unfurnished tenants pay anything like that figure. We know that a high proportion of furnished tenants, unlike the sterotyped image of them frequently presented—foot-loose characters who want accommodation for merely a short time—are long-term tenants, and that, in London at any rate, 49 per cent. of them have families. We know that a minority of persons occupying furnished accommodation in the stress areas wanted furnished accommodation. The majority would have preferred unfurnished accommodation. We know that this is where the greatest hardship exists. We know from the Francis Committee conclusions that
In the search for housing in the private sector, at least half suffered from some form of potential handicap (being a lone parent, unemployed, sick, coloured, having a low income, having three or more children, or not being fully conversant with the English language).
It is these people—[Interruption.]—who are least able to help themselves—[Interruption.]—who find themselves in furnished accommodation—

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind hon. Members who are talking in that group of what Mr. Speaker Coke said in 1593:
It is not the manner of the House that any should whisper or talk secretly, for here only public speeches are to be used.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: It is these people who are forced into furnished accommodation and who receive no assistance from the Bill. They are the only people who do not. Owner-occupiers get £300 million in tax relief and council and private tenants will receive some means-tested assistance. No matter how poor the furnished tenant is he will get no assistance.
In Committee we discussed this issue and the Government put forward a totally inadequate case in response to the plea that rent allowances should be extended to furnished tenancies and the ill-effects of the Bill thereby mitigated. The Minister said in Committee that one of the points against extending rent allowances to furnished tenants was that it would be difficult to ascertain what proportion of such tenants were long or short term. It is irrelevant whether the proportion is high or low. What is relevant is that a high proportion will be suffering considerable hardship. It is said that it is difficult to sort out what proportion of rent is attributable to furniture and what proportion attributable to premises. As the Minister said, a furnished tenancy is not just an unfurnished tenancy with furniture.
The reason for the enormous differences between the levels of rent in the furnished and unfurnished sectors is that there is no effective Rent Act protection, there is no control by the rent officer to ensure that the scarcity factor is excluded with furnished tenancies. As there is no security from eviction most furnished tenants dare not go to the rent tribunal to claim protection which they may get, because they would be evicted shortly afterwards, as we know from the survey carried out by the Francis Committee. As it stands, the Bill will do an immense amount of harm. It will bring about an increase in the level of prices, already rising alarmingly. The Government could mitigate this and ensure that those who are least able to bear hardship will be helped.
I am thinking of families such as I saw at my surgery on Monday. This is a family living in one room in North Kensington with three children who have to play, eat, sleep and live generally in that one room, cooking on the staircase and with the lavatory downstairs. This is in a redevelopment area and this family will not even be rehoused, because Kensington Council does not rehouse furnished tenants. The husband earns £26 a week, which is just over £20 after stoppages and travel. He is paying £7 per week for the rent of that single room, for those appalling living conditions. That family has no hope. Although the man has been in steady work for four years he cannot save a penny because all his money is going on rent and on keeping his family. He is earning a sum which might in other parts of the country enable him to save but he can make no provision whatever. His standard of living is abysmally low, keeping a wife and three children with what is left from £13 a week.
This Clause would ensure that in such circumstances rent allowances could be paid. The Government's case as presented during the fourteenth Sitting of the Committee was that it would be difficult to distinguish these cases. That is irrelevant. It was also said that it would involve over-burdening rent officers but that too is irrelevant when we consider that 5½ million council house tenants are to have their rent re-assessed. Surely the furnished tenants' rents could be assessed? Although it is true that in the absence of security any such provision will be only a partial benefit, these allowances will nevertheless relieve immense hardship. I hope that the House will accept the Clause.

Mr. James Allason: It is unacceptable that furnished tenants should be left outside the scheme. I do not always go all the way with the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) who frequently exaggerates and always produces the worst case as opposed to what is the general case In consequence, he tends to be misleading. He made it clear today that these are the tenants who have the heaviest burden, and it is wrong that they should not be helped. There are certainly those who are long-term tenants awaiting

cheaper housing. This is typical nowadays. When a young couple marry they tend to go first into furnished accommodation before they are able to move to some other form of accommodation.
The arguments we have heard against including furnished tenants in the Bill are, first, that they are fleeting tenancies and, secondly, that there is a difficulty in finding a formula. I accept that there are a number of fleeting tenancies but that problem can be solved by imposing a six-month residential qualification. That would mean that no allowance would be paid until aperson had been in residence for six months. That would deal with those who were there for three months and then moved—the holiday lettings and that type of thing.
The more serious objection is over the difficulty of finding a formula. I produced a formula, the only one produced in Committee. It was uncriticised except by my hon. Friend the then Under-secretary who said that it needed further examination. The great merit of my scheme was that it avoided the apportionment which bedevils all others. Everyone seems to think that it is possible to say, "This is the unfurnished rent, this is the services element, this is the cost of the furniture, add them together and that is the furnished rent." That gives an entirely different figure. My system moves away from the furnished rent. It takes the accommodation as it is to be let, treating it as if it was unfurnished and then it is taken to the rent officer who assesses what would be a fair rent if the premises were unfurnished, and the rent allowance is granted on that formula. I cannot see what the objection is to that, except that it possibly does not give the tenant the amount of rent allowance which the Clause would give. But it would achieve a rent allowance which was fair because it would be on all fours with that of the unfurnished tenant. It must be reasonable to go at least as far as that. We want to ensure that the furnished tenant is treated at least as fairly as the unfurnished tenant. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will move considerably from the position which he has so far taken.

Mr. John Horam: I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann). He made the point very


strongly—and it is the central point—that the most and worst cases of hardship come within the category we are discussing. He was quite right to give the example which he did. I take exception to the comment of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) about my hon. Friend citing extreme cases. When we are talking about cases of hardship such as these, it is absurd to say that they are few and that the average is slightly better. Of course it is slightly better. But the fact is that these terrible cases exist and they should have the highest priority in our attempts to improve the housing situation.
The situation of furnished tenants in need is worsening. I am chairman of a housing association operating in North Islington—one of the classic stress areas. Many people working in that area tell me that the situation now is worse than it was six or nine months or a year ago because house prices are going up and because, with the improvement grant situation as it is, landlords are keener than ever to get out tenants and to sell their houses and make a profit.
For that reason, any help which can be given to furnished tenants in this category should be given. The Government claim that by the Bill they will help those who most need it. This is the most needy category and any help which they can give is more desperately wanted than ever before. That is borne out by a quote which I saw in The Guardian the other day from the chairman of the social services committee in Islington, who said:
Pressure on tenants in private property in Inner London is increasing. In Islington, which has more homeless families in council care than any other London borough, complaints to the town hall of harassment and unlawful eviction rose by a third in the first three months of this year, compared with the same period in 1971
Not all the 500,000 or so tenants in furnished tenancies are facing this situation, but a high proportion of them in London and the central areas and the big conurbations are facing it. That is why the Government must do something quickly and urgently.
I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North, said about rent rebates. I am glad that the Labour Party has pledged itself to look

at the question of security of tenure, which is an absolutely necessary element in any plan for dealing with the situation. Rent rebates will only help to mitigate the problem. The solution lies in other and far more urgent and comprehensive attempts at planning.
6.15 p.m.
I commend to the Minister in particular two things which it is in his power to influence and which are being done by one or two progressive councils in inner London. They are in addition to any scheme of rent rebates or allowances for furnished tenants. First, one of the best things which a council can do to help to solve the problem is to make a systematic effort to ensure that as much as possible of the multi-occupied, run-down property is bought directly by the council or by a housing association vetted by the council. It must make systematic attempts to round up this property, to designate particular areas—perhaps a couple of streets or so—and say to the landlords in that area, "Improve your property to a reasonable level at reasonable rents in, say, a year's time or we will buy you out and compulsorily purchase your property". The Minister could help by urging local authorities compulsorily to purchase property for improvement on the same footing as has happened for some time in the case of total redevelopment. He should make his views unequivocally clear about that matter.
Secondly, the Minister could help the process by not baulking at the large sums which councils sometimes have to pay to acquire property which they wish to improve. The Secretary of State turned down the Camden council's application to buy a large block of property and carry out improvement work which would have saved it for occupation for working class people. Six months later it was sold for double the price, or something like that.
The Minister must adopt a flexible policy. Local authorities should be careful about the kind of planning permission they give when it comes to giving improvement grants. I should like them, as the Islington Council is trying to do, not automatically to give planning permission for splitting houses into very small units. By refusing permission for breaking a house into small units and instead encouraging the development of the house


into two large units, larger families could be accommodated.
That is the sort of thing which is being done by some councils in inner London. The Minister could help by changing the system of improvement grant. He should relate the grant not to the number of flats in a conversion, but to the number of people. If he made that change in the administrative structure, he would remove the bias towards splitting a house or block of flats into the largest number of flats, which means that many working class families lose the possibility of having a home and the accommodation goes to single people or couples rather than to families who are in a desperate plight.
As I have said, the situation in this sector of housing has worsened since the Minister took charge, partly as a result of his omissions and partly because of house prices in inner London. He can do something to help to solve the problem, and he should do something.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: With new Clause No. 6, you, Mr. Speaker, were kind enough to select for discussion new Clause No. 2 which stands in the names of a number of my hon. Friends representing London constituencies and my own. New Clause No. 6 contains some controversial matter, and I do not know that I should be willing to support it. However, I support the principle that tenants of furnished accommodation should be allowed to benefit from this important Bill. I would go further; I should like to find a way of including the occupants of mixed residential and commercial premises—for instance, self-employed people with their own small shops.
It is not necessary to obscure the issue by considering questions of security of tenure or rent control. We should consider the much bigger picture of who we should try to help by means of housing allowances. As time is very short I will not develop this theme to any very great extent, but it is important to point to the fact that there is what one might call a nascent housing allowance already included in the provisions for pensioners where the single pensioner is to get a pension of more than £6 a week, whereas two pensioners living together do not receive twice as much. One also finds in the tax allow-

ances that a married couple's allowance is not equal to twice the single person's tax allowance. Thus one can only recognise that there is included in our longstanding provisions both in regard to pensioners and in regard to tax allowances a hidden subsidy or allowance to the householder.
Since the Government are coming forward with a Green Paper on the whole question of positive tax credits I am sure that this is a matter which must have received their attention.
There are, naturally enough, serious administrative difficulties in assessing the level of rent which might be deemed to be paid by the tenant in furnished accommodation for the purposes of this Bill. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) made an extremely sensible and workmanlike suggestion for dealing with it, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will take it into account. I hope he will make to the House today a commitment in principle to examine again the position of furnished tenants and will let us know how he proposes to tackle this problem. It has been recognised in all parts of the House as one which ought to be dealt with.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: I shall be very brief because so far we have had unanimity on this matter. Perhaps I should preface my remarks by saying that those of us who felt unable to support my right hon. Friend in the last Division felt so not, as was suggested by the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), because they have any basic doubts about the nature of this Bill or about the quality of this Bill but because we think it is so fine a structure that we are reluctant to see it pass with even the smallest blemish upon it. Thus we took our view last time and thus we hope that this time we may find that my right hon. Friend is able to meet us when he comes to the Dispatch Box. For a moment I thought that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) had also been promoted to the Front Bench and was to reply to the debate, but I see that my dreams are not being fulfilled. I hope that my right hon. Friend will say that in view of the unanimity of the House on this matter and the strength of feeling which has been expressed he can meet us on this point.
The hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) was eloquent about the situation of the tenants of furnished tenancies in his constituency. We are parliamentary neighbours, and to all intents and purposes my constituency and his have exactly the same problem. In Committee I spoke of the number of people I have coming to my surgery who are in furnished accommodation, and I spoke of their problems.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: I am rather taken by that point the hon. Member is making, that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) have exactly the same constituency problems. It was noticeable in Committee that the hon. Member and my hon. Friend voted on opposite sides frequently. Therefore I cannot see how the same problems exist.

Mr. Scott: We may have taken different ways on some matters, but not on this subject, and in so far as we voted on opposite sides at other times on other parts of the Bill, then obviously it is for our colleagues to decide whose were the better judgments in how our votes were cast. However, as I said, I want to be brief.
I want to reiterate the particular aspect of the furnished tenancies as brought up by the hon. Member for Kensington, North, and that is the fact that the vast majority of people living in furnished accommodation—in my constituency, but I believe that this applies to inner London as a whole—are not there because they have chosen to go into furnished accommodation. They are there because there is no alternative for them. Many of them, as many as 50 per cent., and I think, even more in my own constituency, are family units, many of them fatherless families, single-parent families, certainly. Therefore, they are the families in most need of support. There is no case for turning down the principle embodied in these two new Clauses on the ground that we are dealing with a transient population, with a population which has opted to go into this type of accommodation. We are not. They are forced into these circumstances; they are families, in many cases some of the poorest families and

the most under-privileged families, many of them paying inflated rents. I hope that my right hon. Friend may at least concede that these are tenants who ought to be helped by this Bill.
I acknowledge the problem of the administrative burden of introducing this proposal at the same time as the general scheme for allowances to other private tenants. Nevertheless, I believe that we ought to take the opportunity at some stage of this Bill of widening its provisions. If that cannot be done at this stage, let us at least have an undertaking that it shall be done in the immediate future and that we shall have a universal system of rebates and allowances to apply to everybody in furnished accommodation. My right hon. Friend, I know, draws large inspiration from Disraelian concepts and will have noted the remark of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the need to create one nation. I believe that the Government will have done more by their legislative programme to make one nation than has ever been done by all the waffle of hon. and right hon. Members opposite, and that this will be seen when this Parliament has run its term. My right hon. Friend has a splendid opportunity this afternoon, with these new Clauses, to translate an admirable principle into practice.

Mr. Freeson: I was about to put a direct question to the Minister. In view of the general unanimity which there was in Committee on this aspect of the matter, however the voting may have gone eventually on particular Amendments which were tabled on party lines, the Minister indicated that he would make a considered statement, bearing in mind all the views which were expressed, and in view of the unanimity on both sides of the House this afternoon I wonder whether the Minister is prepared to give us a declaration of Government intentions now. We hope that they will be effective intentions on this matter.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Amery: When the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) rose I was about torise to reply. I delayed doing so before because I wanted to give time for hon. Members who have put their names to these two Clauses to make their speeches.
First let me offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the new Under-Secretary of State on his first appearance at this Box today. The outcome of his first debate in his new capacity was rather a close run thing. But I believe that all those who heard him will agree with me that his grasp of the issues underlying the subject before us, like the grasp shown by his predecessor, went a good deal further than that of his right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction.
Next let me say how glad I am to see the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) in his place. When I saw that he had left for the Far East I had doubts whether he would be with us for the concluding stages of these debates on the Bill—and they increased when I saw the reasons why he came back. Indeed——

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I sent for him.

Mr. Amery: —I thought for a moment that the Labour Party would stand by the old Biblical injunction, "If thy foot offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee". I think the right hon. Gentleman may have translated that as meaning to catch the floating vote. The fact that he is there now convinces me that providence is a Tory force and that the right hon. Gentleman will live to fight another day.

Mr. Speaker: What is the relevance of all this to these new Clauses?

Mr. Amery: The only relevance, Mr. Speaker, is the delight I was expressing at seeing the right hon. Gentleman in his place for this discussion which, I think, is of considerable importance.

Mr. Skinner: Get on with it then.

Mr. Amery: Yes, indeed.
Ever since the publication of the White Paper a number of my hon. Friends and a number of hon. Members opposite have been urging us to extend the rent allowances to tenants of furnished accommodation in the private sector. In this they have had the support of many—I think most—of the distinguished students of housing problems outside. This issue was debated at considerable length in Committee, when I undertook

to make a further statement on Report. This I now do.
I have all along accepted that many of the tenants who are most in need of help are to be found in the furnished sector. We recognise their plight and we want to help them. But practical problems cannot be solved by sympathy alone.
It would be generally accepted that any scheme for operating rent allowances for tenants in the furnished sector would have to be operated by the local authorities. But before a Government places a new and difficult statutory duty on local authorities they must be satisfied that the duty can be effectively discharged and they must discuss any scheme in detail with the local authority associations.
In Committee I said that there were basically two difficulties in the way of producing an effective scheme. At the risk of some repetition, perhaps I should go back to those grounds because there are a number of hon. Members in the House who were not present in Committee and may not have had time to read the voluminous Committee proceedings in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
There is, first, the difficulty of valuation. What is the rent on which a rent allowance is to be based? My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) has proposed that it should simply relate to what would be the fair rent of the dwelling if let unfurnished, excluding any element in the rent attributable to furniture or services for which the rent rebate or allowance would not be available to tenants of unfurnished accommodation. Even after deducting the element of rent attributable to furniture and services, what is called the reasonable rent of a furnished dwelling as determined by a rent tribunal is higher than the fair rent would be for the same dwelling unfurnished.
There are several reasons for this, to which the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) referred. Letting a furnished property involves more work; the landlord provides more services, accepts more responsibility for repair and decoration and bears more risk of a bad debt. The dwelling is more often empty because lettings are of shorter duration. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead said that it would


be reasonable to go as far as he suggested but, in equity, if we are to find a scheme, I am not sure that we may not have to go rather further.
The other difficulty is that of identifying those furnished tenants who have made their homes in furnished dwellings and whose claim for help is at least as good as that of the family who have made their home in unfurnished accommodation.
As I told the Committee on 20th January, as long ago as last October I set up a working party to consider how these practical and administrative difficulties might be overcome. It consisted of officials of my Department and others with experience of local government and rent tribunals who were invited to serve in a personal capacity. Much useful preliminary work has been done by the working party and we now have ideas which could serve as a basis in discussion with the local authority associations.
Meanwhile, quite spontaneously, the Association of Municipal Corporations and the London Boroughs Association—the two local authority associations whose members would have the main responsibility for operating a scheme of rent allowances for furnished tenants—have formally called on the Government to extend rent allowances to furnished tenants. The Urban District Councils Association and the Rural District Councils Association—the other two associations also concerned—have said that they are in principle in favour of such an extension.
In these circumstances, the Government consider that we are now in a position to embark on formal consultations with the local authority associations. These will begin this week. Their purpose is to work out a practical and effective scheme. It if can be worked out—and I am confident that it can—the Government will make it the duty of local authorities to operate such a scheme. The House, I am sure, will understand that I cannot forecast details of the scheme which will emerge from the consultations. I would not want to raise false hopes and it would in any case be wrong for me to anticipate the views of the local authority associations, but perhaps I could say this.
The working party thinks that it may well be possible to base the rent allowance on what would be the fair rent for the dwelling if it were let unfurnished but with some adjustment to take account of the fact that the furnished and unfurnished markets are different. The working party also believes that ways can be found of distinguishing between those tenants who have made their homes in furnished dwellings—I have in mind families with children and pensioners—and the substantial migratory population which occupy a large number of furnished tenancies at any one time.

Mr. Frank Marsden: In Committee the Minister suggested that the people who live in furnished accommodation are always moving about—he almost suggested that they did moonlight flits. My information is that there is no greater amount of movement among tenants of furnished accommodation than there is amongst tenants of unfurnished accommodation. In my constituency, for example, a fairly constant number of people live the best part of their lives in furnished accommodation.

Mr. Amery: Out of the half million people in furnished tenancies a number have made their permanent homes in furnished accommodation. These are the people for whom hon. Members on both sides of the House, in bringing them into the ambit of the allowance scheme, feel that they have a direct responsibility. Perhaps half the people occupying furnished tenancies throughout the country go to another town for a short time on a particular job or on a research project, or they are foreign visitors to this country, and they are in a different category.
The working party thinks that it sees a solution to these two major problems, but there are still many detailed problems which have to be solved before a scheme can be introduced. It would be wrong to try to set a date at this stage. As the Opposition recognised in the new Clause, 1st April, 1973 is probably about the earliest date by which local authorities can be expected to make a start on granting rent allowances to furnished tenants. The authorities must first have time to cope with the introduction of rent allowances for unfurnished tenants, which they have to do by 1st


January, 1973. I do not think that 1st April, 1973, is an unreasonable date if a proper scheme can be worked out.
We shall, therefore, enter upon thorough, and I trust successful, discussions with the local authority associations. When these have been completed I shall report again to the House so that the House can comment on any scheme which I can put before it.

Mr. Clinton Davis: A few moments ago the right hon. Gentleman quoted an estimated 500,000 people in furnished tenancies. When was that figure first estimated, and is there not evidence to show that it is out-dated and that the number of furnished tenancies has subsequently increased, particularly in stress areas such as my constituency?

Mr. Amery: I shall be in a position to give the hon. Member a much more authoritative answer when the final figures for the current housing survey are in my hand. I am beginning to get the first figures. I do not have the figure of unfurnished tenancies, but I am advised that it could be nearer 600,000 than 500,000 and that there has probably been no greater expansion than that.
In view of what I have said, I hope that my hon. Friends and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will not press the new Clauses. I assure them that the Government are determined, with the help of the local authorities, to solve the problem of extending allowances to furnished tenants and to do so as speedily and effectively as we can.

Mr. Crosland: I began to be extremely encouraged during the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech since he sounded forthcoming, and I thought that some action was about to be announced. There has been only one change since the debate in Standing Committee on 20th January, and that is the change in the attitude of the local authority associations. Not only have they declared their unanimous support, but the AMC and the LBA have publicly said that they would take responsibility for administering the scheme.
In the light of all that—and the strength of the arguments has grown

stronger every month—I thought the Minister was about to say, "The Government have definitely decided to implement a system of rent allowances for furnished tenants." Instead, the phrases he used were on lines that he hoped to work something out in terms of a scheme, or that he trusted that the new formal consultations would be successful. All that has changed between his speech on 20th January and that today is that in both cases he has been hoping and trusting that things would come to a successful outcome but the only difference is that the working party is now to be replaced by consultations with the local authority associations.

Mr. Amery: The right hon. Gentleman is doing a little less than justice to what has happened. Two things have happened. First, we have had statements from the four local authority associations concerned that they would like to cooperate in administering such a scheme. Secondly, the working party has now taken its internal deliberations as far as it can without discussions with the local authority associations. When the right hon. Gentleman cavils at my saying that I am confident that a scheme can be evolved, or even that I trust that this will take place, I am sure that he will be the first to agree, from his experience of local government, that it would be wrong for me to declare that something was to be evolved before consultations had taken place with the local authority associations. If we are to operate the scheme, it must be with their co-operation and consent—perhaps I should not say with their consent, but certainly with their co-operation after very detailed consultations with them. It would be a very great mistake for me in the House today to anticipate those discussions.

Mr. Crosland: The Minister's reluctance to move a step without the full agreement of the local authority world is well known, and we appreciate it. Nevertheless, I repeat that I was hoping for something stronger than the phrases he used this afternoon. I accept his assurances that he personally is determined to bring his consultations to a successful conclusion. If only to encourage him in his new endeavours, we shall not withdraw the new Clause. We shall vote for it.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

Division No. 142.]
AYES
[6.45 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Foot, Michael
Milne, Edward


Albu, Austen
Ford, Ben
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Forrester, John
Molloy, William


Archer, Peler (Rowley Regis)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Armstrong, Ernest
Galpern, Sir Myer
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Ashley, Jack
Garrett, W. E.
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Ashton, Joe
Gilbert, Dr. John
Moyle, Roland


Atkinson, Norman
Golding, John
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Murray, Ronald King


Barnes, Michael
Gourlay, Harry
Oakes, Gordon


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Ogden, Eric


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
O'Halloran, Michael


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
O'Malley, Brian


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oram, Bert


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Orbach, Maurice


Bishop, E. S.
Hannan, Wlliam (G'gow, Maryhill)
Orme, Stanley


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hardy, Peter
Oswald, Thomas


Boardman. H. (Leigh)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Booth, Albert
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Padley, Walter


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hattersley, Roy
Paget, R. T.


Bradley, Tom
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Palmer, Arthur


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Heffer, Eric S.
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Horam, John
Pardoe, John


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Buchan, Norman
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pavitt, Laurie


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Huckfield, Leslie
Pendry, Tom


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pentland, Norman


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Cant, R. B.
Hunter, Adam
Prescott, John


Carmichael, Neil
Irvine, Rt. Hn. SirArthur (Edge Hill)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Janner, Greville
Price, William (Rugby)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rankin, John


Castle, Rt. Hni. Barbara
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roper, John


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rose, Paul B.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Sandelson, Neville


Cronin, John
Kaufman, Gerald
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Kelley, Richard
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Kerr, Russell
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Lamond, James
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Dalyell, Tam
Latham, Arthur
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davidson, Arthur
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Sillars, James


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Leonard, Dick



Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silverman, Julius


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Skinner, Dennis


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Small, William


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


de Freitas. Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lipton, Marcus
Spearing, Nigel


Delargy, H. J.
Lomas, Kenneth
Spriggs, Leslie


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Loughlin, Charles
Stallard, A. W.


Dempsey, James
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Steel, David


Doig, Peter
McBride, Neil
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Dormand, J. D.
McCartney, Hugh
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
McElhone, Frank
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McGuire, Michael
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dutty, A. E. P.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Swain, Thomas


Dunn, James, A.
Mackie, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Dunnett, Jack
Mackintosh, John P.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Eadie, Alex
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)



Edelman, Maurice
McNamara, J. Kevin
Tinn, James


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Tomney, Frank


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Marks, Kenneth
Torney, Tom


Ellis, Tom
Marquand, David
Tuck, Raphael


English, Michael
Marsden, F.
Urwin, T. W.



Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Varley, Eric G.


Evans, Fred
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wainwright, Edwin


Ewing, Henry
Mayhew, Christopher
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Faulds, Andrew
Meacher, Michael
Wallace, George


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Watkins, David


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mendelson, John
Weitzman, David


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mikardo, Ian
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Millan, Bruce
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Foley, Maurice
Miller, Dr. M. S
Whitlock, William

The House divided: Ayes 239. Noes 270.

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Wilson William (Coventry, S.)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Woof, Robert
 Mr. James Wellbeloved




NOES


Adley, Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet
McLaren, Martin


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fortescue, Tim
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fowler, Norman
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Astor, John
Gardner, Edward
Maddan, Martin


Atkins, Humphrey
Gibson-Watt, David
Madel, David


Awdry, Daniel
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Marten, Neil


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife. E.)
Mather, Carol


Balniel, Lord
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maude, Angus


Balsford, Brian
Goodhart, Philip
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Beamish, Col. Sir Tutton
Goodhew, Victor
Mawby, Ray


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Gower, Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J


Benyon, W.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gray, Hamish
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Biffen, John
Green, Alan
Miscampbell, Norman


Biggs-Davison, John
Grieve, Percy
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire.W)


Blaker, Peter
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Moate, Roger


Boardman, Tom (Leicester. S.W.)
Grylls, Michael
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Body, Richard
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Monro, Hector


Boscawen, Robert
Gurden, Harold
Montgomery, Fergus


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
More, Jasper


Bowden, Andrew
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm


Bray, Ronald
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morrison, Charles


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mudd, David


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Murton, Oscar


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Neave, Airey


Bryan, Paul
Haselhurst, Alan
Normanton, Tom


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hastings, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley


Buck, Antony
Havers, Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hawkins, Paul
Osborn, John


Burden, F. A.
Hay, John
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hayhoe, Barney
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Heseltine, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Carlisle, Mark
Hicks, Robert
Parkinson, Cecil


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Higgins, Terence L
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cary, Sir Robert
Hiley, Joseph
Pink, R. Bonner


Chapman, Sydney
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Holland, Philip
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L


Churchill, W. S.
Holt, Miss Mary
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hordern, Peter
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hornby, Richard
Quennell, Miss J. M


Clegg, Walter
Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn.Dame Patricia
Raison, Timothy


Cooke, Robert
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Coombs, Derek
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Cooper, A. E.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Redmond, Robert


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hunt, John
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Cormack, Patrick
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rees, Peter (Dover)



James, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Costain, A. P.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Critchley, Julian,
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Crouch, David
Jessel, Toby
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Crowder, F. P
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ridsdale, Julian


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutstord)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jopling, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmild.MaJ.-Gen.James
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith



Dean, Paul
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rost, Peter


Deedes. Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Russell, Sir Ronald


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kershaw, Anthony
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Dixon, Piers
Kimball, Marcus
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Scott, Nicholas


Drayson, G. B.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Sharples, Richard


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kinsey, J. R.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh a Whitby)


Dykes, Hugh
Kitson, Timothy
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Eden, Sir John
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Sinclair, Sir George



Knox, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lane, David
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Soref, Harold


Emery, Peter
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Speed, Keith


Eyre, Reginald
Le Marchant, Spencer
Spence, John


Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sproat, Iain


Fell, Anthony
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Stainton, Keith


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Loveridge, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fidler, Michael
Luce, R. N.
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Filnsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
MacArthur, Ian
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charler
McCrindle. R. A.
Stokes, John







Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Tapsell, Peter
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wiggin, Jerry


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Vickers, Dame Joan
Winterton, Nicholas


Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Waddington, David
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Tebbit, Norman
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Woodnutt, Mark


Temple, John M.
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Worsley, Marcus


Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Walters, Dennis
Younger, Hn. George


Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Ward, Dame Irene



Tilney, John
Warren, Kenneth
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Traftord, Dr. Anthony
Weatherill, Bernard
Mr. Marcus Fox and


Trew, Peter
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mr. John Stradling Thomas.


Tugendhat, Christopher

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 3

THE TRANSITION SUBSIDY, AND ASSOCIATEDRATE FUND CONTRIBUTION

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 4, line 16, leave out paragraph (b).
The purpose of the Amendment and of the Amendments associated with it—Nos. 4, 6, 10, 11 and 12—is to deal with three subsidies: rising cost subsidy, transition subsidy and rent rebate subsidy. All three have this in common that they will be so reduced by the Government that the Government's share in the first year will be 90 per cent., in the second year, 85 per cent., in the third year 80 per cent., and in the fourth year 75 per cent. Our purpose may not seem absolutely clear, but that is because, due to the Money Resolution, we have not been able to table an Amendment saying that the subsidy ought to be borne 100 per cent. by the Government. That, however, is our purpose.
Our first reason for tabling the Amendments is that the prime and central responsibility for relieving poverty—and that is what the rent rebate subsidy is all about; low income and the ability of ordinary families to have accommodation—rests with central Government. That is what every General Electionis fought about. But what we have in the Bill is premeditated reduction of subsidies by the Government to 90 per cent. in the first year reducing to 75 per cent. after four years. Eventually, the Government take the power to reduce their share to as little as 60 per cent.
So the Government make a premeditated withdrawal from the war on bad and inadequate housing and premeditated withdrawal from the battle against poverty. It is a withdrawal from

the war which most Governments are expected to wage with every weapon at their command. We have here a reduction in subsidy which is precisely calculated by mathematical percentages. During the last election the Prime Minister and others spoke eloquently about the need to relieve poverty, but when we see a Bill which deals with an aspect of poverty we see a shrugging of that responsibility by mathematically worked-out timetable.
Our second reason for objecting to the withdrawal provision and for saying that the subsidy must remain at 100 per cent. is that the Bill was devised to reduce subsidies on housing by £200 million in the first five years and by £300 million within ten years. The White Paper expressly says so.
Our third reason is the need to expose the hypocrisy and deceit of that paragraph in the White Paper which talks about the financial independence of local authorities, and says that the Government cannot subsidise to the extent of 100 per cent. as that would undermine local authorities'financial independence. That is utter cant and hypocrisy. Under the Bill, local authorities have no control over their level of rents and precious little control over the level of rebates. Rent and rebate levels are dictated. We therefore say that since the local authorities are to have no independence at all in this respect the subsidy must run at 100 per cent.
Finally, we say that if the subsidies are withdrawn as shown in the Bill, a heavier and heavier burden will fall on the ratepayers. It is the responsibility of the Government and not of the ratepayers, who are already extremely hard pressed, to provide adequate housing and relieve poverty. I believe that the Amendment will have the support of the local


authority associations. I am sure that when the effect of the withdrawal of the subsidies is realised by the ratepayers it will have the support of them all. And I believe that it will have the support of the House as well.

Mr. Amery: I have hardly been left time to develop what might be called a powerful argument in reply to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser).
It is a fundamental principle of the Bill that subsidies are for people. In my view and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends a subsidy system should not be judged by the amount of subsidy going to a particular local authority. What matters is whether the subsidy meets the need of individuals. If an authority can balance its accounts by charging fall

Division No. 143.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Albu, Austen
Dempsey, James
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Doig, Peter
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Dormand, J. D.
John, Brynmor


Armstrong, Ernest
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire. E.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Ashley, Jack
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Ashton, Joe
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Atkinson, Norman
Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Bagler, Gordon A. T
Eadie, Alex
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Barnes, Michael
Edelman, Maurice
Kaufman, Gerald


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Edwards Robert (Bilston)
Kelley, Richard


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kerr, Russell


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgewood
Ellis, Tom
Kinnock, Nell


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
English, Michael
Lambton, Antony


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, Fred
Latham, Arthur


Bishop, E. S.
Ewing, Henry
Leadbitter, Ted


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fisher,Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Leonard, Dick


Booth, Albert
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Bradley, Tom
Foley, Maurice
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Foot, Michael
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Ford, Ben
Lipton, Marcus


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Forrester, John
Lomas, Kenneth


Buchan, Norman
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Loughlin, Charles


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Garrett, W. E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Gilbert, Dr. John
McBride, Neil


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
McCartney, Hugh


Cant, R. B.
Golding, John
McElhone, Frank


Carmichael, Neil
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McGuire, Michael


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Gourlay, Harry
Mackenzie, Gregor


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mackie, John


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mackintosh, John P.


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Cohen, Stanley
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Concannon, J. D
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Marks, Kenneth


Conlan, Bernard
Hardy, Peter
Marquand, David


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marsden, F.


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Cronin, John
Hattersley, Roy
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mayhew, Christopher


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hooson, Emlyn
Meacher, Michael


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Horam, John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mendelson, John


Davidson, Arthur
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, Denzill (Llanelly)
Huckfield, Leslie
Millan, Bruce


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Milne, Edward


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Deakins, Eric
Hunter, Adam
Molloy, William


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Delargy, H. J.
Janner, Greville
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

rents to those tenants who can afford them—and by granting rebates to those who cannot—it does not need a subsidy. In that situation all legitimate needs are met without a subsidy. Subsidies are justified only where they are needed to balance the books.

It being Seven o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded, pursuant to the Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and the Orders [13th March and this day], to put forthwith theQuestion already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 269.

Morris, Rt Hn. John (Aberavon)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Swain, Thomas


Moyle, Roland
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Thompson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Murray, Ronald King
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Tinn, James


Oakes, Gordon
Roper, John
Tomney, Frank


Ogden, Eric
Rose, Paul B.
Torney, Tom


O'Halloran, Michael
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Tuck, Raphael


O'Malley, Brian
Rowlands, Edward
Urwin, T. W.


Oram, Bert
Sandelson, Neville
Varley, Eric G.


Orbach, Maurice
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Wainwright, Edwin


Orme, Stanley
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Oswald, Thomas
Short, Rt. Kn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wallace, George


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Watkins, David


Padley, Walter
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Weitzman, David


Paget, R. T.
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Wellbeloved, James


Palmer, Arthur
Sillars, James
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Silverman, Julius
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Pardoe, John
Skinner, Dennis
Whitehead, Phillip


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange
Small, William
Whitlock, William


Pavitt, Laurie
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Pendry, Tom
Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Pentland, Norman
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Perry, Ernest G.
Stallard, A. W.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Prescott, John
Steel, David
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Woof, Robert


Price, William (Rugby)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rankin, John
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Summerskill Hn Dr shirley
 Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Adley, Robert
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hawkins, Paul


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid. Maj.-Gen. James
Hay, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Dean, Paul
Hayhoe, Barney


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Heseltine, Michael


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hicks, Robert


Astor, John
Dixon, Piers
Higgins, Terence L.


Atkins, Humphrey
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hiley, Joseph


Awdry, Daniel
Drayson, G. B.
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Dykes, Hugh
Holland, Philip


Batsford, Brian
Eden, Sir John
Holt, Miss Mary


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hordern, Peter


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hornby, Richard


Benyon, W.
Elliott, R. W. (Nc'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Emery, Peter
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Biffen, John
Eyre, Reginald
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Farr, John
Hunt, John


Blaker, Peter
Fell, Anthony
Iremonger, T. L.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Body, Richard
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
James, David


Boscawen, Robert
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles



Bowden, Andrew
Fookes, Miss Janet
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Bray, Ronald
Fortescue, Tim
Jessel, Toby


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fowler, Norman
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fox, Marcus
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fry, Peter
Jopling, Michael


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bryan, Paul
Gardner, Edward
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Gibson-Watt, David
Kershaw, Anthony


Buck, Antony
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kimball, Marcus


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Burden, F. A.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Goodhart, Philip
Kinsey, J. R.


Campbell, Rt. Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Goodhew, Victor
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Carlisle, Mark
Gower, Raymond
Knox, David



Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Lane, David


Cary, Sir Robert
Gray, Hamish
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Chapman, Sydney
Green, Alan
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Grieve, Percy
Le Merchant, Spencer


Chichester-Clark, R.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Churchill, W. S.
Grylls, Michael
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Loveridge, John


Clegg, Walter
Gurden, Harold
Luce, R. N.


Cooke, Robert
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Coombs, Derek
Hall, John (Wycombe)
MacArthur, Ian


Cooper, A. E.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McCrindle, R. A.


Corlield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McLaren, Martin


Cormack, Patrick
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Costain, A. P.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)


Critchley, Julian
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Crouch, David
Haselhurst, Alan
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Crowder, F. P.
Hastings, Stephen
Maddan, Martin


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Havers, Michael
Madel, David







Marten, Neil
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Mather, Carol
Raison, Timothy
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Maude, Angus
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Tebbit, Norman


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Temple, John M.


Mawby, Ray
Redmond, Robert
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tilney, John


Miscampbell, Norman
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Trew, Peter


Moate, Roger
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Tugendhat, Christopher


Money, Ernle
Ridsdale, Julian
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Monro, Hector
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Montgomery, Fergus
Rost, Peter
Vickers, Dame Joan


More, Jasper
Russell, Sir Ronald
Waddington, David


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Morrison, Charles
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Mudd, David
Scott, Nicholas
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Murton, Oscar
Sharples, Richard
Walters, Dennis


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitbv)
Ward, Dame Irene


Neave, Airey
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Warren, Kenneth


Normanton, Tom
Sinclair, Sir George
Weatherill, Bernard


Onslow, Cranley
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Osborn, John
Soref, Harold
Wiggin, Jerry


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Speed, Keith
Wilkinson, John


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Spence, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Sproat, Iain
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Parkinson, Cecil
Stainton Keith
Woodnutt, Mark


Percival, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor
Worsley, Marcus


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Pink, R. Bonner
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh. W.)
Younger, Hn. George


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.



Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stokes, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Mr. John Stradling Thomas and


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Tapsell, Peter
Mr. Kenneth Clark.


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Seven o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and the Orders [13th March and this day] to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice liad been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Seven o'clock.

Clause 4

THE RISING COSTS SUBSIDY, AND ASSOCIATED RATE FUND CONTRIBUTION

Amendments made: No. 9, in page 6, line 8, leave out
'the end of the year'
and insert
'30th September in the year'.

No. 17, in page 8, line 18, leave out 'this subsection' and insert 'subsection (11) above'.—[Mr. Amery.]

Clause 10

TOWN DEVELOPMENT: PAYMENTS BY SENDING AUTHORITY TO RECEIVING AUTHORITY

Amendment made:

No. 25, in page 13, line 17, after 'arranged', insert 'or may arrange'.—[Mr. Amery.]

Clause 11

THE SLUM CLEARANCE SUBSIDY

Amendment made:

No. 28, in page 17, line 5, after '1966' insert
'or section 250 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (both of which sections relate to'.—[Mr. Amery.]

Mr. Amery: I wish to move Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31, standing in the names of the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) and several of his hon. Friends.
I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 17, line 33, leave out 'three' and insert 'six'.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

No. 30, in page 17, line 34, leave out '1968' and insert '1965'.

No. 31, in page 17, line 47, leave out '1968'and insert '1965'.—[Mr. Amery.]

Clause 12

THE HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Crosland: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 19, line 23, leave out paragraph (c).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With this Amendment we are to take the following Amendments:

No. 34, in page 103, line 1, leave out Schedule 1.

No. 43, in page 110, line 25, leave out paragraphs 17 and 18.

No. 46, in page 20, line 1, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Crosland: I start by expressing our gratitude that the Minister showed good sense and wisdom in accepting three of our Amendments and, indeed, taking them over and moving them himself. I hope that this is an earnest of good intentions for the remainder of the Report stage.
Amendment 33, and the others taken with it, have the object of ensuring that if a local authority chooses to impose rents which produce a surplus on the housing revenue account, that surplus is retained by the local authority and is not sequestrated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the manner laid down in the Bill.
I note that this is one of the provisions to which the whole local authority world objects most bitterly and unanimously. Their objection to the sequestration of the surplus forms one of the parts of the resolution passed with only three dissentients at the notable special meeting of the AMC on 7th March.
In a joint statement, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in a previous debate, the AMC, the RDCA and the UDCA also bitterly object that half the surplus on the housing revenue account should be taken by the Chan-

cellor of the Exchequer. This provision has been most strongly attacked in all the local authority journals from the moment that the Government's intention became clear in the White Paper last summer. The Opposition share the objections put forward by the local authority associations. Indeed, we probably take those objections further than they might take them.
We object in principle to an additional tax being imposed on council tenants alone of all housing groups. I wish there were more hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly hon. Members who did not serve on Standing Committee E. I wonder whether they realise exactly what is being proposed under the surplus provisions of the Bill. Council tenants over most of the country outside the major conurbations, the areas of housing stress—forexample, my constituency which is fairly typical—will pay their ordinary taxes and rates like everybody else, and, under the proposals in the Bill, they will have an increase in rents which will save the Government £200 million of subsidies by 1975–76.
Those parts of the country outside the big conurbations, on top of the ordinary taxes and rates, which they should pay, will pay the full unsubsidised cost of the council housing in their areas. In addition, they will pay the cost of rent rebates to their poorer council tenant neighbours and the cost of rent allowances to the poorer private tenants living in their areas. On top of paying the full unsubsidised cost rent, the rebates and the allowances, they will produce in most parts of the country in only three or four years from now a surplus in the housing revenue account, half of which will go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in extra taxation and half of which will be repaid by him to the general rate fund to relieve the general ratepayer.
The only figure which we have been given relating to the size of the surplus was an estimate by the Minister in Committee when he put the size of the surplus in 1975–76 at £30 million a year. This struck all of us as an astonishingly low figure. I know that some of my hon. Friends who have done calculations will make some comment upon that estimate this evening. Even if the figure is as low as that in 1975–76, there is no doubt that


it will grow rapidly in the years thereafter and will become very significant.
No serious attempt has been made to justify the principle of the surplus, half of which will accrue to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. For example, owner-occupiers in Grimsby—good luck to them—will receive large sums of money from the Chancellor in the form of mortgage interest tax relief, while council house tenants, who on average have lower incomes than owner-occupiers, will receive no help or subsidy of any kind, and will pay this extra tax to the Chancellor in the form of the surplus. It is an extraordinary situation when the most aid is going to those who need it less and the least aid is going to those who need it most, if we take the total paid to council tenants, on the one hand, and owner-occupiers, on the other.
The only justification which the Minister sought to give in Committee underlined this contrast and contradiction. When we were debating Schedule 1 on, I think, 18th January, he said, in effect, that the Government had in the past paid out large sums of subsidy which had enabled council houses to be built and that in future, under the provisions of the Bill, they would cover a percentage—it alters from year to year; initially it will be 75 per cent.—of any deficit in the housing revenue accounts of local authorities, and that by doing that in the past and pledging themselves to do it in the future the Government have, in some sense, established an equity in council housing, and that on this equity they should receive a dividend in the form of half of any surplus in the housing revenue account.
That argument might carry some weight, but I think that it is brought forward at an odd time. The Government's argument is that because of their generosity with subsidies part of the surplus should accrue to them, but in practice what they are doing is substantially cutting aid to the council housing sector as a whole.
However, ignoring that, I suppose one might find some merit or attraction in the argument—I rather doubt it, but one might—if it were applied across the board and not only to council housing. But it is not applied across the board. The Minister is not proposing any simi-

lar return on his investment from owner-occupiers. They will continue to get from the Chancellor relief amounting to more than £300 million a year, and growing rapidly at present rates, but they will not pay back to the Chancellor anything equivalent to what the council tenant sector as a whole will pay back in the form of half the surplus. I do not believe that that is the real justification for what the Government are doing, because it will not stand up in logic or in equity.
The real motives for these proposals—not merely the reduction in subsidies which we discussed a few minutes before seven o'clock, but also the provision for the repayment of the surplus—are different, and are two in essence. First, the Government are determined to improve the competitive position of private housing and to reduce the part played by public sector housing. This was made clear—and I make no apology for repeating it, because it is such a significant and accurate guide to the Government's attitude—in the famous speech by the Secretary of State for the Environment to the Housing Research Centre in July, 1969, when he said bluntly—and this is what the Conservative Party believes—that the ratio of council housing at the present level of wages is much too high.
We heard again and again from Conservative Members in Committee what I found a hideously unattractive argument. The argument is that people should not live in council houses if their income rises beyond a certain point; that somehow council housing is for certain types of person only and that if people do not fall into that category, and in particular if their incomes rise beyond a certain point, they should not go on living in council houses and they ought—and this will happen under the Bill—to be pushed into buying their own houses.
The Government's motive is basically to diminish the rôle played by council housing in our total housing scene and to make it become a residual system for the poor. I found it ironic that in an earlier debate there was a reference to the Prime Minister's Disraeli-like appeal for one nation, because the Bill will create an absolutely horizontal dividing line in housing between two nations.
That is the first motive behind this provision for the repayment of the surplus and other provisions in the Bill. It is to weaken the council housing sector and to confine it to a sector for the poor, fundamentally, and to strengthen the competitive position of the private sector.
The second objective of these provisions about the surplus and of the Bill as a whole is to save a large sum of public expenditure—first, by a cut in subsidies; secondly, by introducing into council housing the concept of a surplus, of a landlord profit; thirdly, by expropriating half that profit in the form of additional tax.
The result of all this is that council tenants will bear a disproportionately heavy tax burden compared with other housing sector tenants. The motive is not one of housing policy fundamentally. The motive is basically one of strict Conservative ideology. It is for all those reasons that I have moved the Amendment which has the effect of bringing to an end the proposal to impose on council tenants already paying ordinary rates and taxes this additional tax in the form of half the surplus.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I have a number of comments to make. Both in the previous debate and in Committee the Minister appeared to say that local authorities, by making a compulsory contribution from the rate fund, would be given an opportunity to indulge in greater responsibility. I suppose that his argument in favour of the compulsory payment from surpluses is that it would give housing committees of local authorities an opportunity to engage in a display of compulsory patriotic fervour.
The right hon. Gentleman said in the previous debate that the Bill was designed for the people, but the people are not to be given any choice about whether they make a contribution to Whitehall. In many parts of the country this will become compulsory. Last week, on Yorkshire Television, the Minister made the comment, which I am sure he will recall, that Yorkshire authorities were unlikely to be in a position in which they would make contributions from the surpluses in their housing revenue accounts. One cannot speak with cer-

tainty at this stage, but it seems to me that many authorities will be making a contribution; that many areas of considerable unemployment will make large payments to Whitehall. Our argument is that money should be steered from the south to the north, and not in the opposite direction.
I can illustrate my argument by taking an example from my own constituency, and I do not regard this as an isolated example. Many authorities in the West Riding of Yorkshire will share a similar experience.
In the largest of the local authorities in my constituency, State subsidies amount to £154,575 per year. I do not suppose that that figure would have increased had the Bill not been introduced. I suppose that on a reasonably generous estimate, the total cost of rebates in that authority—assuming that there is a take-up of 35 per cent. to 40 per cent.—will be less than £200,000. If the fears of the pessimists are proved right, if rents are trebled, or even quadrupled, that sum will be greater but, taking a modest, conservative estimate of what rent increases will amount to, a sum slightly less than £200,000 will cover the total cost of the rebate. This means that the cost of subsidy added to the cost of rebate will be £210,000 short of what unrebated rents will be yielding in my constituency, or in the one authority in my constituency, by 1974–75.
If those estimates are correct—and I think they are—there will be a surplus of £210,000 and there are in that authority about 7,600 council houses. The Minister will be able to calculate that a surplus of £210,000 in one year spread amongst 7,690 houses is not very far short of £30, and since balances are already substantial, and as they will increase in the two years before 1974–75, it is clear that there is a serious likelihood not that we shall be able to make no surplus at all but that there will be a very heavy surplus, indeed.
I therefore suggest that the Minister's comments on Yorkshire Television last week were misleading. I believe that a careful study of the implications of this part of the Bill for the county authorities in the North of England will lead to the view that the problem will be that areas in great need, areas with environmental


problems, areas with a need for economic expansion will be pouring money into the South of England.
As the representative of a West Riding constituency, I find these provisions objectionable. I am sure that what I have described is not an isolated consideration and that the Bill needs drastic improvement.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Edward Rowlands: I find myself in the unusual position of having read all the Official Reports of the Standing Committee proceedings, though I was not a member of the Committee. While it must have taken a masochist to be a member, I must be unique among those who bothered to read everything that was said at that stage.
By the curious fortunes of politics, one can become involved in an aspect of work and then be cut off from that activity by the intervention of a General Election, at any rate for the time being. I was a junior Minister at the time of the last Labour Government and played a modest part in the housing finance review which was being conducted before the Conservatives came to power at the last election.
Much has been said about what was not taken into account in that review, and I do not consider it improper to refer to the work that was done at that time, particularly on this question of a housing surplus. The last Labour Government came to the conclusion that the concept of fair rents in the local authority sector should be rejected. The overwhelming reason—a reason arrived at not by ardent Socialist Ministers but by impartial witnesses who had scrutinised the possibilities of having such a system—for rejecting this concept was the conclusion that there was no fair way of distributing the surplus money.
It is curious that much of the work that is conducted by one party when in power does not see the light of day if at the next election another party takes office. A great deal of good, honest, factual information remains in the archives of the Department as a result of our housing finance review, and it will probably not be; resurrected for 30 years or more. It is a pity that this detailed work will never see the light of day.
I wish that both sides could agree to publish such documents. If that were done it would be clearly seen that fictitious figures—I can only conclude that they are fictitious—have been brought to the forefront since the last election on this question of surpluses. I was astonished to hear it suggested that the surplus would be only £30 million. I vividly recall the statistical assessments that were made when I was in office. Having compared the fair rents of thousands of properties with dwellings in the local authority sector we concluded in our housing finance review in 1969 that the fair rental income of all local authorities would exceed expenditure by about £250 million.
That figure was arrived at via a detailed computer analysis. The computer at the Department was "neutral" in those days, and unless the Government have installed a Tory-type computer, I cannot understand how the right hon. Gentleman arrived at the figure of £30 million. It is clear that some authorities would have a minus or tiny surplus, while the major authorities would have massive ones, particularly in the early days.
I recall figures of £1¼ million, £4 million and even £10 million being mentioned as the surpluses of the largest housing authorities. In other words, profit—"profit"is the word to use—of that magnitude, would be creamed from local authority housing revenue accounts and put in the Treasury pool. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to talk about small sums being involved.
The way in which the Bill proposes to implement so-called fair rents will represent one of the most arbitrary forms of taxation ever devised. People will not be taxed each according to his means and ability to pay but according to the accident of one's family holding a local authority tenancy. Not since the window tax of the nineteenth century has there been such an arbitrary form of taxation. It is monstrous.
Having rejected the idea of fair rents, we in the 1969 Labour Government considered how, even if the idea were implemented, one could dispose of the surpluses so derived. Could they go into local authority house building? No, because that would result in more houses producing even larger surpluses. Could the money be used to improve housing


estates and individual homes? No, because under the fair rental system that would penalise the tenant in that he would be charged higher rents, likewise resulting in larger surpluses.
The decision to reject the fair rent concept was taken not by mad Socialist Ministers but by a combination of people in the housing sphere, after taking and considering advice. It was finally concluded that surpluses of that kind should not be dropped into the enormous pool of the Exchequer.
The Government know that it is nonsense to argue that the surplus will go towards slum clearance or to other valuable housing purposes. Never since the road fund tax of the 1920s has it been possible to appropriate moneys in that way to a specific purpose; it all drops into the general Exchequer, and it can be spent on anything from troops east of Suez to slum clearance in Manchester or Liverpool. No one will know whether the money goes to housing or not. It is a monstrous and evil suggestion to say that it will be specially appropriated to housing. It cannot be, and it will not be, for there is no such provision in the Bill.
If there were a special provision that all surpluses would be handed back to local authorities to help with slum clearance, I should still object, because I see no reason why money should be taken from one section of a local community to meet other needs, even for such a good purpose as housing. But, in fact, there is nothing to that effect in the Bill.
What possible case is there for taking away the surpluses? My right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) mentioned some of the arguments used by the Government, the so-called equity argument, and so on. But why should present tenants pay higher rents for the benefits which past tenants received in subsidy 10 or 15 years ago? Again, there is no case for it.
What these provisions do—this is why we object to them so strongly—is to destroy a basic principle in housing which, until this time, has been accepted on both sides. I am not a consensus politics man, but one matter on which there has been a consensus written into every piece of housing legislation since the First World War is that local authority housing should

be a non-profit making operation. But the Government now propose that every major housing authority should turn itself into a profit making body, becoming, so to speak, a Rachman in its own area, raising money in extra rents over and above what is required to balance the housing revenue account, and raising, as I say, not thousands but millions of pounds, if the assessments of the Department are to be taken as correct, as one assumes they are.
This provision will not apply to Scotland. I hope to have an opportunity at some stage to argue that it should not apply to Merthyr Tydvil or to Wales generally. I see no reason why English and Welsh tenants should have this imposition put upon them.
When all the paraphernalia of conditions and qualifications behind this proposal are stripped away, it is seen as one of the most arbitrary features of the application of fair rents to the local authority sector. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends feel as strongly as I do that this is one of the most reprehensible and nauseating features of the Bill. There are many such features, but this is particulary monstrous because it destroys the principle of local authority housing being a non-profit making operation, and it penalises certain members of the community because of the pure accident that they are local authority tenants. What more unjust scheme could be devised, either locally or nationally?
At this late stage, the Minister is committed to the Bill, but even now I make a plea to him. I do not do it as a doctrinaire Socialist—though I should be very ready to do that on a matter such as housing—but as one urging the right course upon a man who is capable of thinking again on certain aspects of the Bill. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to ask his own officials what their view was in 1969 of the idea of a surplus or a profit on the housing revenue account. Let him think again, and come forward at a later stage with proposals designed to remove one of the greatest injustices ever perpetrated in housing in Britain.

7.45 p.m.

Sir Gilbert Longden: There is, I think, no traditional obligation upon me to congratulate


the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands) on a second maiden speech, but, as the last occasion we were together was one on which we enjoyed a convivial evening as the guests at a local association banquet, I hope that he will allow me to say, "Welcome back to this place".
We have six more Clauses and two Schedules to discuss before half-past eight, so I shall make but two points. I confess that I should like to have seen the whole surplus kept by the local authority, coupled with an obligation upon the authority to spend it upon housing. I do not understand the hon. Gentleman when he says that it is monstrous to suggest that the surplus should be used for slum clearance——

Mr. Rowlands: I did not say that.

Sir Gilbert Longden: —to build houses for the old, and so on. That is what I should like to have seen, but there are two reasons why I shall not vote for the Amendment.
First, it cannot be denied that a large amount of Exchequer money has gone into the housing from which this revenue comes. Second, whatever may happen to the surplus, it does not adversely affect the council house tenant that he has to pay a fair rent. There is no reason why every council house tenant, like every other tenant in the kingdom, should not pay a fair rent for the accommodation which he occupies. If it is justified, the council tenant will have a rebate. Therefore, as I say, whatever happens to the surplus, the council tenant is not adversely affected.
For those two reasons, I cannot support the Amendment.

Mr. David Stoddart: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands). I was not here in the last Parliament, so I did not have the opportunity to hear him. Obviously, I missed a great deal, and I look forward to hearing many of his speeches in the future, for he feels deeply on many matters and knows a great deal about housing.
Before the last election, the Tories talked a good deal about freedom, freedom for the local authorities, more freedom than they had under Labour, freedom to do what they wanted in their

own areas. The Clause contains measures which put local authorities in the strongest straitjacket they have ever been put into. To add insult to injury, the Government take away not only their freedom but their money. It is little wonder that the local authorities are very concerned about this aspect of Government policy. Some people might not mind losing a bit of freedom, but they do not like losing hard-won surpluses. Certainly, the local authorities do not.
The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir G. Longden) said that Exchequer money had gone into local authority housing over a long period, and for that reason he would not vote for the Amendment. There are several points to be made on that, and I have not the time to make them all, but over that period the major financial contribution for local authority housing has been made not by the Exchequer or the local authorities but by the council tenants. It is, they who have paid for the major part of the council housing assets that we now have. That should be borne in mind when we talk about the Exchequer contribution.
My right hon. Friend said that the Government were determined to make local authority housing a profitable and profit-making service. That is a dastardly thing to do at this point——

Mr. Rowlands: At any time.

Mr. Stoddart: Particularlyat this time. I have always believed there is far too much profit in housing. Too many people have jumped on the housing band-waggon and have charged exorbitant amounts for land, building and services. Many people have made fortunes out of the housing needs of others. The Government are seeking to make local authority housing something that it has not been—a profit-making service—at a time when there is a great need to lower financial temperature in housing. Throughout the country housing costs are escalating at a frightening rate. Yet the Government introduce a Bill which will exacerbate rather than help the housing situation and the housing price situation. Already, the cost of houses for owner-occupiers is escalating at 30 per cent. a year. I do not know what will happen when the pressure is increased by council tenants seeking to buy in the private market.
We are concerned about inflation. Why should the Government at this time introduce a Bill which is bound to increase inflationary pressures? We understood that they were committed to dealing with inflation, to bringing down prices at a stroke, yet they introduce a Measure which will appreciably increase the weekly outgoings of a large section of our population.
It is not as if the profit is needed in housing. Mr. Henry Aughton, Borough Treasurer of Hemel Hempstead and financial adviser to the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, estimated that to balance the housing books without any Exchequer or rate contributions there would be a need for £174 million extra paid in rent. But he estimates that under the Bill the Government will increase the surpluses on housing revenue accounts and will net an extra £420 million. What is the object of that? Why does the Minister increase the inflationary pressures and tendencies in this way? Why does he want to raise an extra £420 million when only £174 million would be needed to balance the local authorities' housing books without any assistance from the Exchequer or the ratepayers at large? This is economic and financial nonsense, and can only increase the inflationary pressures on the economy.
There is great resentment among local authorities. I have mentioned their resentment at having their freedom and their money taken away, but there is a greater resentment. In general, local authorities have done an exceptional job over the past 40 or 50 years in housing. Without their contribution, the housing situation would be impossible. They feel very aggrieved that the Government, so committed before the election to freedom, should now take their freedom away. That resentment is increased because many local authorities, owing to falling interest rates, would now be in a position not to put rents up but in many parts of the country to stabilise them and in some parts of the country to bring them down.
During the debate in Committee I told the Minister that in Reading, where I live, there was a surplus in the last financial year of £500,000, and that local authority could have reduced rents by 50p a

week per tenant and spent another £250,000 on needed repairs and improvements.
That is the measure of the disenchantment local authorities have with the Bill. I hope that the Minister, even at this late stage, will see sense and will at least advise his right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the Amendment.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I share the misgivings of my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart). I feel very strongly about the Amendment. I speak as one of the many Vice-Presidents of the Association of Municipal Corporations, which is by no means a revolutionary body, although if the Government continue in this way it may very well be a good deal more revolutionary within a month or two. I think it highly likely that it will be.
That cool and collected body, with a majority of representation supporting the Government, has passed resolutions which make it clear that, particularly on the point in the Amendment, it is almost unanimous in saying that any surplus in the housing revenue account should be retained by the local housing authority. This is self-evident.
8.0 p.m.
I thought for a brief moment that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden) was supporting this proposition but, alas, at the last minute he weakened and did not fully support it.
The general governmental attitude of declaring at one time that local authorities shall have greater freedom of action and immediately imposing first a rate of rent which local authorities may not wish to impose and then requiring local authorities to disgorge part of the surplus which may emerge is a level of dishonesty which is considerable even for this Government. I do not impute such a thing to any individual member of the Government. It is clear that the Association of Municipal Corporations believed that its political friends, as I suppose that they would be, on the Government side would take note of its view and make some amendment to these proposals. The town which I represent has temporarily been afflicted with a Conservative council, but not for long. Even that Conservative authority made


it clear that it has no intention of increasing the rents as might have been required under the Bill, because it said that there would be every possibility of an amendment to the Bill before it became law.
Naïve though they must be, the members of that local authority assumed that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government would be capable of accepting advice from their party in the country as well as from the Opposition. They have been proved to have been misguided. They, like everybody else, will have to bear the consequences within a month or so.
Throughout local government, almost irrespective of the political composition of local authorities, there is a growing contempt for the Government attitude, above all for the Government's refusal to allow local authorities any independence of action in a crucial area like this. In the north of England it is exactly in the areas where higher rents are to be imposed against the will of local authorities to secure surpluses that the surpluses inure to the Treasury in large amount.
Can any right hon. or hon. Member be surprised if many sober, industrious, middle-of-the-road authorities, faced by such actions, declare that they will not operate the Bill? The Government's action calls for this kind of insurrection, although I regret it. By denying local authorities rights that should belong to them, it is not surprising that councillors rise up and insist that they should be able to act as they feel right for those in their neighbourhood. It is the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues who are denying them that right, unless he accepts the Amendment.

Mr. Michael Cocks: On the question of the disposal of the surplus, I reiterate what has been said by my hon. Friends the Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) and South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) about taking freedom from local authorities. Whilst this Bill was being considered in Committee, for day after day I sat in a neighbouring Committee Room, like my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, considering the Local Government Bill. Day after day we heard the Government expound the philosophy that local autho-

rities should be given greater freedom to take decisions. Yet in this Bill we have the absolute humbug that the Government are imposing a straitjacket in respect of the housing function.
The Government came within five votes of defeat in the House last Monday on their proposal to create a county of Somerset of 385,000 people and yet reduce the City of Bristol to a district council of 425,000 people, despite the disparity in population of the two resulting authorities. The only major sector of responsibility left to Bristol will be housing, Bristol will be shackled by the Government, and is shackled by the Bill. It will be reduced to the status of a rent collector for the Tory Government.
My constituents and others in council accommodation in Bristol already know that rents will rocket under the Bill. What they do not yet realise is that they will be milked to supply a surplus which the Exchequer can then give away in tax cuts to the wealthy. In scrounging around for any source of revenue to use for tax concessions to the already well off, the Government are introducing the wrong Measure at the wrong time for the wrong reasons.

Mr. Amery: The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks), and the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) and other hon. Members opposite who have intervened, have advanced two arguments. They say, first, that there should not be a surplus for disposal and, second, that if there is a surplus none of it should go to the Exchequer.
It is an essential part of our proposals that the rents which tenants pay are not related to the state of the housing revenue account. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden) said, the tenant pays a fair rent for his dwelling if he can afford it and a rebated rent if he cannot afford it. As a result, income in the housing revenue accounts of some authorities will fail to meet expenditure, and such authorities will get a subsidy to cover the deficit. In other authorities the income will exceed the expenditure; and the account, after allowing for a reasonable working balance, will be in surplus.
The best estimate that I can give the House is that over the country as a whole such surpluses might amount to about


£30 million by 1975–76.This is necessarily a tentative estimate, but it is the best that I can make. Much greater estimates have been suggested by hon. Members opposite. I believe that these fail to take sufficient account of several factors. As more and more dwellings reach the fair rent, rent income will tend to rise more slowly looking beyond 1975–76. Some rent increases, particularly in the first year, will not give rise to much extra income, because of rent rebates, and expenditure itself on new building and the like is likely to go on increasing.
Indeed, there is a rather curious conflict in the Opposition claiming, as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands) did, that the housing revenue surpluses will be enormous and, simultaneously, that local authorities will have to make intolerable housing fund contributions to meet deficits, as was argued on Amendment No. 3.

Mr. Julius Silverman: When was the Minister's estimate of the amount of the surplus made, and has it taken into consideration the recent decline in the rate of interest which resulted in surpluses in a number of authorities?

Mr. Amery: When I made the estimate I told the Committee that it was necessarily a rough and ready estimate. It is difficult to be detailed in an estimate of this kind. There are many factors of which we have no certain knowledge.

Mr. Rowlands: Is this estimate of the surplus at £30 million the estimate of the surplus that would accrue nationally after fair rent levels have been reached in every local authority, or in the interim period?

Mr. Amery: I just gave the date—1975–76.
The Opposition, particularly the right hon. Gentleman, described the creation of a surplus and the passing of part of that surplus to the Exchequer as a tax levied on tenants. They argue that because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or, for that matter, a borough treasurer, may set receipts from a housing revenue account surplus against expenditure, or use it to relieve taxation, those receipts somehow become a tax on those who

pay the rent. That is totally illogical. If a private tenant pays rent to a private landlord and the landlord pays part of that rent to the Government as tax, no one can reasonably argue that part of the rent is a tax on the tenant. The tenant pays the same rent to his landlord whether or not the landlord pays part of it to the Government.
Under our proposals, in this respect the council tenant will be in the same position as the private tenant. The council tenant will pay a fair rent, which will be rebated if necessary. He will pay that rent irrespective of whether his local authority has a surplus or a deficit. The rent is not designed to create a surplus. It is not increased if there is a deficit. The rent is no more a tax on a tenant when there is a surplus which is shared by taxpayers and ratepayers than if there is no surplus. Under our proposals, the tenant is not called upon to help taxpayers or ratepayers, because the rent tenants pay is not fixed with either the ratepayer or the taxpayer in view. This is an improvement on the present situation.
At present, a tenant's rent may be increased to avoid the ratepayers having to meet a deficit, even if his rent is already fair and reasonable in relation to his dwelling. Those authorities which pride themselves on avoiding rate fund contributions, or keeping them down, are saying that tenants must pay more so that ratepayers should pay less, or less than they would otherwise have paid.
The right hon. Gentleman also brought up one of his favourite red herrings in this matter that whereas money was being taken away from council tenants—he argued they were being taxed—tax relief was being given to owner-occupiers, which he described as a subsidy. I have never equated tax relief with subsidy and I do not propose to do so tonight.
Clearly the option mortgage subsidy is a subsidy in the true sense of the word. What is clear is that whereas there are some 5 million council tenants who will continue in one way or another to receive some £300 million worth of subsidy a year, through the option mortgage subsidy, which is only a tiny fraction, and tax relief, the owner-occupier


sector, which is more than half the population, will receive about the same amount, so that there is no very strong argument about that.

Mr. Hardy: Did the right hon. Gentleman say that the 5 million council tenants would receive £300 million in subsidies from the Government?

Mr. Amery: In one way or another. We are saying that the subsidies will continue at about the present rate, although they may be a little higher than the present rate. The fair rent itself in most cases will be a subsidised rent and there are all the other subsidies which we debated at great length in Committee and with which the hon. Gentleman is familiar.

Mr. Frank Allaun: We have heard some things which we have let pass, but it would be intolerable to let this pass. The Minister knows very well that the present Government subsidy to local authorities is £157 million a year and that when he talks about £300 million a year he is including supplementary benefit to old-age pensioners and all the rest. He knows that to do so is unfair.

Mr. Amery: I am including the help with rent which supplementary benefit recipients receive, and I am putting in the entire element of subsidy that is directly attributable to housing. This will continue at about the same level as now if not somewhat higher.
If there is a surplus to be disposed of to either ratepayers or taxpayers, the next question is whether the whole of it should go to the ratepayers or some to the Treasury. Under our proposals, the surplus is used first to meet the cost of rent allowances in the proportion in which taxpayers and ratepayers contribute towards that cost and thereafter is shared equally between taxpayers and ratepayers. I recognise that the local authority associations argue that the ratepayers should get the whole of the surplus and not just part of it. That is a natural argument for them to make and I understand their putting it forward.
8.15 p.m.
But there is a strong case for letting taxpayers have a part of any surplus. It relates not merely to the past, as the right hon. Gentleman appeared to sug

gest when he said that I had advanced the argument that the Exchequer had a share in the equity of council houses. In future, as in the past, taxpayers will make a much more substantial contribution to housing revenue accounts than will ratepayers and where a deficit arises most of it will be met by the taxpayers at large. Thus, the whole community will shoulder a larger burden in areas of housing stress than will the stress areas themselves. This is quite right, because the problems of the housing stress areas are too great to be solved entirely by financial contributions from those areas themselves.
But it is also fair that taxpayers, who have to continue to bear most of the burden of helping the housing stress areas, should receive some alleviation of that burden from housing revenue account surpluses arising in areas where there is no housing stress. All taxpayers will have to continue to meet housing need and they have a claim as well as those fortunate ratepayers who no longer have to contribute towards meeting that need.
The Opposition have presented the disposal of the surpluses as a transfer of funds from poor areas to rich areas. That is not so. It is a complex situation but it is clear that the ratepayers in housing stress areas will not gain, because they will have to go on meeting part of the housing revenue account deficit while the deficit lasts. Moreover, domestic ratepayers in stress areas tend to make an average payment for all purposes which is relatively high. For example, in the inner London boroughs the average rate demand for 1971–72 is expected to be in the range of £70 to £90 while in Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool it will be about £60. On average, domestic ratepayers in other areas tend to make rate payments for all purposes which are relately low. For example, in some authorities in Derbyshire and North-East Lancashire, where a housing revenue account surplus is likely to arise, the average rate payment for 1971–72 is estimated to be mainly in the range £23 to £35.
Nor do I accept the argument that to pay the ratepayers only part of the surplus is to penalise those local authorities which have been prudent in the management of their housing affairs. A housing authority which incurs a deficit


in its housing revenue account may be, and often is, as prudent as one that has no deficit. It does not incur a deficit necessarily through inefficiency, but because its housing problems are more severe, in spite of all that has been done in the past to solve them.
Many authorities likely to have housing revenue account deficits are those which as a matter of policy avoided rate fund contributions to the housing revenue account wherever they could do so. Their claim to the surplus is reasonably made by the arrangements for sharing for which the Bill provides. These arrangements are fair between citizens as tenants, as taxpayers, and as ratepayers. They put the council tenant and the private sector tenant and the owner-occupier on the same footing for taxation and rate payment purposes. The council tenant will pay a fair rent just as the private sector tenant will pay a fair rent. They will pay no more than the fair rent and they will get a rebate if they need it. Any surplus which arises is not the aim of the fair rent but it enables the Exchequer to make a further contribution to housing needs.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands) asked whether the money would go back into housing. It is not earmarked as such but since the surplus will be about £30 million and the subsidy paid out will be about £300 million it seems clear that the Exchequer will be paying out at least ten times as much on housing as it receives through the surplus.

Mr. Frank Allaun: This Amendment goes to the root evil of this altogether evil Bill. Weare discussing the disposal of any surplus in the housing authority revenue account and it is clear, while we do not know the exact figure, that it will be a big surplus. We ask, why should there be any surplus at all? Further we ask, why should there beany compulsory surplus? Never before in the history of this House and in the history of housing have councils been forced to make a profit out of their tenants. This is absolutely obnoxious and it is equally obnoxious to the local authorities.
They are forced to make a profit out of their tenants by raising rents even if they do have one penny deficit. Most have had rather a convenient handout because there has been a reduction of

interest rates which are the main factor of housing costs. Most have a nice little surplus. Despite that they will be forced to double their rents in the next four years. The Minister will no doubt say that that is stretching it. His figures for about seven or eight cities were only—only!—about 50 per cent. Butthat is for next year and he knows that by 1976 there will have been a considerable further increase. They will be forced to start with £1 a week this October, if they have not put on 50p in April, to make a surplus in their accounts. Then it is to be taken away in the manner suggested after paying rebates to council tenants and allowances to private landlords' tenants and supplementary benefits to old-age pensioners, which are surely the responsibility of the community as a whole and not the responsibility purely of council tenants.
After that the Government are saying that 50 per cent. of the surplus must go to the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands) pointed out in his maiden speech, this will not go on housing. It could go on battleships, and everyone here knows how enthusiastic I am about spending money on battleships! Or it could go to surtax payers. It will not go on housing. Is it any wonder that Tory-controlled local authorities are in revolt about this?
The Association of Municipal Corporations, the Rural District Councils Association and the Urban District Councils Association have all commented on this. I would guess that nine out of ten of these councils are Conservative controlled, and the Minister knows that they have twice made strong representations to him on this. The letter which came to us today signed by the three principal organisations representing 1,300 housing authorities says:
However although there have been some clarifications and minor improvements to the Bill no changes have so far been made to meet the representations on the main points which cause concern".
One of the points mentioned is precisely the point referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland). Point 3 of this letter says:
(3) That any surplus in the housing revenue account should be retained by the local authority.


It is strange that central Government should seek the surrender by local authorities of a share in the equity of their housing stock at this time when discussions are in hand with central Government to supplement the resources of local government by new and improved forms of local taxation. As a redistributive measure this proposal is strongly challenged. The state of its housing revenue account is not the best measure of the overall resources of a local authority's area.
Here we have the view of the Conservative-controlled local authorities. This Bill will go down as the worst Measure in housing history, worse than the 1957 Conservative Rent Act which raised most rents by 60 per cent. and took a large number completely out of rent control. This is worse because it is forcing councils to make a profit out of their tenants, to charge more money than the cost of the houses requires. This part of the Bill alone affects 5½

Division No. 144.]
AYES
[8.30 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hooson, Emlyn


Albu, Austen
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Horam, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Deakins, Eric
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Huckfield, Leslie


Armstrong, Ernest
Delargy, H. J.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Ashley, Jack
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Ashton, Joe
Dempsey, James
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen. N.)


Atkinson, Norman
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bagier, Gordon A. T
Dormand, J. D.
Hunter, Adam


Barnes, Michael
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. SirArthur (Edge Hill)


Bernett, Guy (Greenwich)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Janner, Greville


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Driberg, Tom
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Dunn, James A.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunnett, Jack
Jenkins. Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Bishop, E. S.
Eadie, Alex
John, Brynmor


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Edelman, Maurice
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Booth, Albert
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Ellis, Tom
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Bradley, Tom
English, Michael
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Evans, Fred
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Ewing, Henry
Kaufman, Gerald


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Faulds, Andrew
Kelley, Richard


Buchan, Norman
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Kinnock, Neil


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Fitch, Alar (Wigan)
Lamond, James


Butler, Ms. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Latham, Arthur


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Leadbitter, Ted


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Foley, Maurice
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Cant, R. B.
Foot, Michael
Leonard, Dick


Carmichael, Neil
Ford, Ben
Lestor, Miss Joan


Carter, Ray (Bimingh'm, Northfield)
Forrester, John
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Garrett, W. E.
Lipton, Marcus


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lomas, Kenneth


Cohen, Stanley
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Loughlin, Charles


Coleman, Donald
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)



Gourlay, Harry
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Concannon, J. D.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McBride, Neil


Conlan, Bernard
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McCartney, Hugh


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McElhone, Frank


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
McGuire, Michael


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mackie, John


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hamling, William
Mackintosh, John P.


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Dalyell, Tam
Hardy, Peter
McNamara, J. Kevin


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Harper, Joseph
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Davidson, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marks, Kenneth


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Marquand, David


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Marsden, F.

million council tenants. If we include their wives and children, it is a third of the population. That is a third of the population with votes. I want the Minister that this will be the dominant issue at next month's municipal elections. I am not a betting man, but if I were I should be prepared to take a gamble on this. Some things are right but unpopular. But this is something which is wrong and unpopular. If the Government force this through against the wishes of the population they will suffer for it. This will meet resistance and lead to all kinds of things which we have not seen for many years.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 251 Noes 272.

Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Pavitt, Laurie
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Pentland, Norman
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Mayhew, Christopher
Perry, Ernest G.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Meacher, Michael
Prescott, John
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Swain, Thomas


Mendelson, John
Price, William (Rugby)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mikardo, Ian
Probert, Arthur
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Millan, Bruce
Rankin, John
Tinn, James


Miller, Dr M. S.
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Tomney, Frank


Milne, Edward
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Torney, Tom


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tuck, Raphael


Molloy, William
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Urwin, T. W.


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Roderick Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Varley, Eric G.


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Roper, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rose, Paul B.
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wallace, George


Moyle, Roland
Rowlands, Edward
Watkins, David


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Sandelson, Neville
Weitzman, David


Murray, Ronald King
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Wellbeloved, James


Oakes, Gordon
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Ogden, Eric
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


O'Halloran, Michael
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)
Whitehead, Phillip


O'Malley, Brian
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Whitlock, William


Oram, Bert
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Orbach, Maurice
Sillars, James
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Orme, Stanley
Silverman, Julius
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Oswald, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Small, William
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Padley, Walter
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Woof, Robert


Paget, R. T.
Spearing, Nigel



Palmer, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Stallard, A. W.
Mr. Tom Pendry and


Pardoe, John
Steel, David
 Mr. John Golding.


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)






NOES


Adley, Robert
Cormack, Patrick
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Costain, A. P.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Critchley, Julian
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Crouch, David
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Crowder, F. P.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Astor, John
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Atkins, Humphrey
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Haselhurst, Alan


Awdry, Daniel
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. Gen. James
Hastings, Stephen


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Dean, Paul
Havers, Michael


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hay, John


Batsford, Brian
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hayhoe, Barney


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Heseltine, Michael


Bell, Ronald
Drayson, G. B.
Hicks, Robert


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Higgins, Terence L.


Benyon, W.
Dykes, Hugh
Hiley, Joseph


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Biffen, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Blaker, Peter
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Holland, Philip


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Emery, Peter
Holt, Miss Mary


Body, Richard
Eyre, Reginald
Hordern, Peter


Boscawen, Robert
Farr, John
Hornby, Richard


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hornsby-Smith.Rt. Ht. Dame Patricia


Bowden, Andrew
Fidler, Michael
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Bray, Ronald
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fletcher-Cooke. Charles
Hunt, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Iremonger, T. L.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fowler, Norman
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bryan, Paul
Fox, Marcus
James, David


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Fry, Peter
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Buck, Antony
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)



Gardner, Edward
Jessel, Toby


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gibson-Watt, David
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Burden, F. A.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Jopling, Michael


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Carlisle, Mark
Goodhart, Philip
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Chapman, Sydney
Goodhew, Victor
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gower, Raymond
Kershaw, Anthony


Chichester-Clark, R.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Kimball, Marcus


Churchill, W. S.
Gray, Hamish
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Green, Alan
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Grieve, Percy
Kinsey, J. R.


Clegg, Walter
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Cooke, Robert
Grylls, Michael
Knox, David


Coombs, Derek
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Lane, David


Cooper, A. E.
Gurden, Harold
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry







Le Merchant, Spencer
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Parkinson, Cecil
Stokes, John


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Percival, Ian
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Loveridge, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Tapsell, Peter


Luce, R. N.
Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


MacArthur, Ian
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tebbit, Norman


McCrindle, R. A.
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Temple, John M.


McLaren, Martin
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Maclean, Sir Fltzroy
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Thomas John Stradling (Monmouth)


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Raison, Timothy
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Tilney, John


Maddan, Martin
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Madel David
Redmond, Robert
Trew, Peter


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Marten, Neil
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Mather, Carol
Rees-Davies, W. R.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maude, Angus
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Maudling Rt. Hn. Reginald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Vickers, Dame Joan


Mawby, Ray
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Waddington, David


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ridsdale, Julian
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Miscampbell, Norman
Rost, Peter
Walters, Dennis


Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Royle, Anthony
Ward, Dame Irene


Moate, Roger
Russell, Sir Ronald
Warren, Kenneth


Money, Ernle
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Weatherill, Bernard


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Monro, Hector
Scott, Nicholas
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Montgomery, Fergus
Sharples, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


More, Jasper
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wilkinson, John


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Winterton, Nicholas


Morrison, Charles
Sinclair, Sir George
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Mudd, David
Skeet, T. H. H.
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Murton, Oscar
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Woodnutt, Mark


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Soref, Harold
Worsley, Marcus


Neave, Airey
Speed, Keith
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Normanton, Tom
Spence, John
Younger, Hn. George


Nott, John
Sproat, Iain



Onslow, Cranley
Steinton, Keith
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Stanbrook Ivor
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Osborn, John
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
 Mr. Paul Hawkins.


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after half-past Eight o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and the Orders [13th March and this day] to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at half-past Eight o'clock.

Schedule 1

THE HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT

Amendments made: No. 236, in page 103, line 12, after 'water' insert 'rates or'.

No. 237, in page 105, line 22, after 'water', insert 'rates or'.

No. 238, in line 25, after 'water', insert 'rates or'.

No. 240, in page 106, line 37, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3).

No. 38, in page 107, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert:

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above shall not apply where the Secretary of State otherwise directs either generally or in any particular case as respects the whole or any part of the amount of the expenditure.

(3) This paragraph applies whether or not the local authority is entitled to any payment under the said section 4 for the year of account.

No. 39, in page 108, line 32, leave out first 'rate' and insert 'rent'.

No. 40, in page 120, line 1, at beginning insert:
'Subject to the provisions of this paragraph',

No. 42, in line 3, at end insert:
(2) The Secretary of State may by order direct that, for such years after the year 1975–76 as may be specified in the order, sub-paragraph (1) above shall have effect with the substitution for £30 of such amount greater than £30 as is specified in the order.
Section 16 of this Act shall apply to orders under this sub-paragraph.

No. 44, in Page 111, line 33, at end insert:

Duty to supply information

20. Every local authority, and every officer of a local authority concerned with their housing functions, shall supply the Secretary of State with such information as he may specify, either generally or in any particular case, for the purpose of enabling the Secretary of State to ascertain the state of the authority's Housing Revenue Account for any year, and it shall be the duty of every local authority to supply the Secretary of State with such certificates supporting the information required by him as he may specify.—[Mr. Amery.]

Clause 14

AMENDMENTS OF NEW TOWNS ACT 1965

Amendment made: No. 47, in page 20, line 13, leave out 'be paid into the Consolidated Fund' and insert:
',subject to subsection (3) of this section, be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
(2) the wholeor part of any payment made to the Secretary of State by a development corporation under subsection (1) above shall, if the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury so determines, be treated as made by way of repayment of such part of the principal of advances under section 42(1) of this Act, and as made in respect of the repayments due at such times, as may be so determined.
(3) Any sum treated under subsection (2) above as a repayment of a loan shall be paid by the Secretary of State into the National Loans Fund'.—[Mr. Amery.]

Clause 16

PROVISIONS AS TO CERTAIN ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 48, in page 21, line 12, leave out 'this Part of'.—[Mr. Amery.]

Schedule 2

SUBSIDIES FOR NEW TOWN CORPORATIONS

Amendment made: No. 49, in page 114, line 19, leave out from 'contribution' to end of line 20.—[Mr. Amery.]

Clause 19

RENT ALLOWANCES

Mr. Eyre: I beg to move, Amendment No. 50, in page 22, line 36, after 'under', insert 'subsection (1) of'.
This is a small drafting Amendment to ensure that there is no confusion

between a local authority's "allowance scheme" under subsection (1) of the Clause and a scheme under subsection (9) operated by the Greater London Council for its non-housing revenue account tenants. The latter would in fact be a scheme for granting rebates but is treated as an "allowance scheme" for the purpose of this Part of the Bill, and is so defined in Clause 26(1). The Greater London Council will not be operating an allowance scheme for private tenants in their area since these tenants will be dealt with by the London borough councils.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Eyre: I beg to move Amendment No. 51, in page 23, line 10, at end insert:
(5A) A person is also a private tenant if he occupies a dwelling let to him by the Crown Estate Commissioners and his tenancy would be a protected tenancy but for section 4 of the Rent Act 1968.
This Amendment follows from an undertaking by the Minister in Committee, at column 682 of the Official Report, that unfurnished tenants of the Crown Estate Commissioners would be included as "private tenants" under Clause 19 and therefore be eligible for consideration for rent allowances
Crown tenants are not protected tenants under the Rent Act, 1968, and are therefore not within the definition of "private tenant" in Clause 19(4). However, the Crown Estate Commissioners are in a special position. They are precluded from granting rebates because of their statutory duty to obtain the best consideration for any disposal of Crown Estate land, which includes the grant of a lease or tenancy.
8.45 p.m.
The Crown Estate Commissioners have in the past, in order that their tenants might not be in a position less favourable than those of a subject, undertaken to ensure that wherever practicable no tenant is prejudiced by the fact that a tenancy granted by them cannot be either regulated or statutory. It is considered only equitable that provision be made in the Bill to ensure that a tenant who would otherwise be eligible for a rent allowance under Clause 19 is not deprived of this right because he is living on the Crown Estate.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20

THE MODEL SCHEMES

Mr. Eyre: I beg to move Amendment No. 52, in page 24, line 16, at end insert:
'or
(c) that the general level of the rents of a class of Housing Revenue Account dwellings of a housing authority or of the rents paid by private tenants for a class of dwelling in the area of a local authority is exceptionally high by comparison with the general level of the rents of the Housing Revenue Account dwellings of other housing authorities or, as the case may be, with the general level of the rents paid by private tenants elsewhere,'.
I understand that with this Amendment it will be convenient to the House to discuss Amendments Nos. 53 to 57.
The purpose of Amendment No. 52 is to widen the scope of the powers in Clause 20(5) of the Bill, which enable the Secretary of State to authorise variations in the model scheme set out in Schedule 3 to the Bill so as to provide for a lower minimum rent and/ora higher maximum rent rebate or rent allowance. Under Clause 20(5), as at present drafted, the powers of the Secretary of State are limited to his authorising only general variations for all housing rent allowance dwellings of an authority or for all private tenants in a local authority's area.
;
It is necessary to widen the scope of this provision to enable authorisations to be made in respect of different classes of dwellings. Such a course might be desirable—for example, where an authority's overall average rent was not exceptionally high as compared with the rent levels of other authorities but where there were classes of dwellings at very low rents and other classes at very high rents. In such a situation the overall average might not be high because of the distribution of high and low rents, but it might none the less be apropriate to make an authorisation under Clause 20(5) to allow the authority to grant more generous rebates to tenants of the classes of dwellings let at very high rents. These proposals will give the Secretary of State more flexibility.
The purpose of Amendment No. 53 is to enable authorities who are introducing a rebate scheme based on the model scheme before the Bill's enactment to apply to the Secretary of State, in advance of the passing of the Bill, for an

authorisation under Clause 20(5) to vary Schedule 3—the model scheme—in relation to their scheme so as to provide for a lower minimum rent and/or higher maximum rebate.
This Amendment will enable the Secretary of State to give consideration to an application for such an authorisation before enactment, and will make it unnecessary for the authority to apply again once the Bill is enacted.
Amendment No. 55 is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that, where a local authority exercise their discretion under Clause 19(7) to provide in their allowance scheme for the granting of rebates to their own non-housing revenue account tenants, their allowance scheme, insofar as it contains provisions, and only such provisions, as the authority is required to include in its scheme under this Clause, remains a model scheme within the meaning of subsection (7) of the Clause. This inclusion of rebates granted under Clause 19(7) within the model scheme will make them eligible for subsidy.
Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 are drafting Amendments to make it clear that any additional rebates or allowances granted under Clause 21(1) or (2) respectively to meet exceptional personal or domestic hardship of a tenant—that is, an additional rebate or allowance over and above that to which the tenant is entitled under the normal rules of the model scheme—do not count as part of the "standard amount" of rebates or allowances granted under the model scheme and so become eligible for subsidy. The cost of these additional rebates and allowances is to be met wholly by the ratepayers within the permitted total under Clause 22(1).
The purpose of Amendment No. 57 is to make it clear that the term "standard amount" as defined in subsection (8) applies also to periods in the financial year 1972–73 before the Bill comes into force. This is necessary because Clause 7(5), in dealing with the rate fund contributions for rent rebates to be made to the housing revenue account in 1972–73, clearly requires that there must be a standard amount of rebates for any part of the financial year preceding the introduction of the authority's scheme under Part II in which an authority is operating a discretionary rebate scheme.
A similar provision appears in Clause 8(5) in respect of rent allowances granted under local Act powers before the introduction of a scheme under Part II—which, incidentally, only affects Birmingham. In each case the "standard amount" of rebates or allowances is the amount of refunds and allowances which can attract subsidy.

Mr. John Fraser: In drafting Amendment No. 2 the Government have chosen to use the word "class"—perhaps not surprisingly—instead of the word "area". As I understand it, what is likely to happen in, say, Kensington or Wands worth is that those boroughs are divided into what, for want of a better term, one could call high-class areas and low-class areas. Some areas will have high rents and others, perhaps less profitable, low rents, but it is possible to find in such an area what one might call, for want of a better expression, a low-class dwelling in a high-class area, and, because of this pressure on rents, dwellings that are almost slums may command high rents. Can the paragraph be applied to dwellings in a certain high-class area, even though they do not fall within the class of dwellings which is readily recognisable?

Mr. Eyre: I can give an assurance on those terms, It is necessary to widen the scope of the provision to enable authorisations to be made in respect of what are described as different classes of building but that, I think, is only for the purpose of explanation of different situations which can exist in different localities. For example, such a course might be desirable where an authority's overall average rent was not exceptionally high as compared with the rent levels of other authorities but where there were very high and very low rents, which is the kind of description of the borough, or possibly the area, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
In such a situation, the overall average might not be high because of the distribution of high and low rent levels, but it might none the less be appropriate to make authorisations under Clause 20(5) to allow the authority to grant more generous rebates to tenants of the classes of dwellings let at very high rents. What it really amounts to is that this proposal gives the Secretary of State considerably

more flexibility in the administration of the scheme to allow local authorities to make more generous allowances in appropriate circumstances and still attract subsidy.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 53, in page 24, line 17, after 'authority', insert:
'made before or after the passing of this Act'.

No. 54, in line 18, leave out from 'in' to first 'as' in line 21 and insert:
'relation to their rebate scheme or their allowance scheme, but in a case under paragraph (c) above only as it applies to the relevant class of dwellings,'.

No. 55, in line 34, after 'above', insert:
section 19(7) of this Act'.

No. 56, in line 42, at end insert:
'otherwise than under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of section 21 below'.

No. 253, in line 46, after 'period', insert:
'otherwise than under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of section 21 below'.

No. 57, in line 46, at end insert:
'and in this subsection "period" includes a period in the year 1972–73'.—[Mr. Eyre.]

Clause 22

THE PERMITTED TOTALS OF REBATES AND ALLOWANCES

Mr. Julius Silverman: I beg to move Amendment No. 58, in page 25, line 35, leave out '110' and insert '200'.
In a number of the uncontested Amendments that the Under-Secretary moved he referred to giving the Government more flexibility. This Amendment proposes to give local authorities considerably more flexibility in dealing with the rebate scheme.
As the Bill as amended in Committee now stands, the position is that a local authority may bring forward a scheme with a tolerance of 10 per cent. above that of the standard or model rebate scheme. The Amendment proposes that the 10 per cent. be increased to 100 per cent.
The 10 per cent. which the local authority pays in addition to the amount under the standard rebate scheme is not subject to any Government subsidy. It is the local authority's own money which


comes either from the rates or into the housing revenue account from the tenants. Therefore in the Amendment I make no proposal which will impose an added burden upon the Exchequer. It is simply dealt with by the local authority out of its funds, which it ought to have discretion to exercise itself.
All that we say is that if a local authority wishes to spend its ratepayers' money—and that is always subject to what the ratepayers say at the next election—or if it wishes to spend money which has been collected by way of surplus from the rents, it should have discretion to do so without having to ask the Minister to adjudicate upon the matter. The Amendment gives discretion to the authority to spend its own and its tenants' money in the way that it chooses. The Amendment does not attract any additional Government subsidy.
The position is made clear by a reading of Clauses 6 and 7, especially of Clause 7(2)(c) which provides that the 10 per cent. over tolerance provided to the local authority does not attract Government subsidy and is purely a rate contribution. All that I ask is that the local authority should be allowed to spend its own or its tenants' money in the way that it pleases.
That brings me to the finances of the scheme as a whole. It has been said many times that there will be extremely substantial increases in rents under this scheme. It is calculated that council rents throughout the country will roughly double. The Government have contested this in Committee, and the Minister has chosen to deny that he is the putative father of the document which was brought out in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). That document undoubtedly was produced by his Department. The right hon. Gentleman chose to deny it, for some reason that he has never made clear.
9.0 p.m.
There is evidence from that document, apart from that of many independent rent experts, that rent increases will be very substantial. That, notwithstanding the existing rebate scheme, will bring considerable hardship to very large numbers of tenants. This allows the local authority, by introducing an im-

proved scheme, to mitigate the hardship to some extent.
I do not like this combination of greatly increased rents and a rebate scheme which embraces 50 per cent. of the tenants who would be subject to a means test to get the rebate. I think that this is wrong in principle. However, when the Bill comes into operation, the rebates will to some extent mitigate the hardship imposed by these high rents.
The Amendment provides that local authorities shall have a much greater latitude out of their own funds in meeting this rebate scheme and dealing with this hardship. While in comparison with most rebate schemes the present model scheme is reasonably generous, it is not generous in all respects. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Birmingham scheme as it affects tenants in certain categories is better than the Government's scheme. However, the Amendment is concerned to mitigate not only the hardship in the cases I have mentioned, but the hardship which will fall upon a large belt of tenants when these high rents come into operation.
These high rents will undoubtedly create substantial surpluses. The Minister mentioned a total of £30 million, but I suspect that that figure was calculated at a time when interest rates were substantially higher than they are now. There has been a transformation of housing revenue accounts. Birmingham, in the last financial year, had a surplus of £1 million. The next expected surplus will be about £3 million. Had it not been for the Bill, it would have been possible for the local authority in Birmingham as housing authority to reduce substantially the rents of council tenants. When the Bill comes into operation, this will not happen, but it shows the way that housing finance is going throughout the country.
Apart from surpluses previously expected, there will clearly be substantial surpluses in a large number of local authorities. After the Government's subsidies have gone, and bearing in mind that in practice they will have gone, the figure of £300 million is bogus because it includes a large part of the amount of supplementary benefit allowances, and quite a number of other items. In fact, to the ordinary tenant the subsidy disappears entirely.
There will then be a surplus on the account. This surplus will take place after the tenant has met from his rent—there is no doubt that it comes from his rent—the cost of the rebate scheme for council tenants, which should have been met by the whole community and not just by council house tenants; a contribution towards the supplementary benefit allowances; and the cost of the private rent allowance scheme. After all that has been met by the tenant there will be a surplus, half of which will go to the Exchequer, and half to the Government.
We think that that is wrong, and that the local authority should have the right to decide what use to make of any surplus that there is, or of any money that is available from the rates. It should be left to decide whether to mitigate the hardships imposed by the Bill by operating a more generous rebate scheme than that proposed by the Government. The Amendment does not say that local authorities have to do something. It gives them permission to take certain action if they desire to do so, and it suggests that there should be an increase, not of 10 per cent., but of 100 per cent., which would go a long way towards mitigating the hardships imposed by the Bill.
As I said earlier, we do not like a combination of high rents, means tests and rebate schemes, bearing in mind that if the Bill comes into operation, so will high rents. The Amendment will give local authorities the discretion, out of funds provided by the tenants—but it is the authority's own business where the money comes from—to exercise the flexibility which the Minister demands for himself but is not prepared to give to local authorities. We seek to provide flexibility to enable local authorities to mitigate the hardship that will be imposed by high rents and to do what the Government say they want to do, namely, to ensure that those in need get the greatest benefit out of housing finance by means of a rebate. The Amendment will be a contribution towards undoing some of the harm that will otherwise be done by the Bill.
The Amendment will give more discretion, more power and more flexibility to local authorities. It will provide greater relief for council tenants and, inci-

dentally, for the private tenant, too, who qualifies for housing allowance. The tenant will receive greater benefits, and local authorities will be given greater discretion than they have now. The Amendment will put tenants in a very much better position than they will be if the Bill becomes law without amendment.

Mr. Eyre: In his interesting speech in moving the Amendment the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) asked for more flexibility for local authorities and made it clear that that extra flexibility should be created at the expense of the ratepayers.

Mr. Silverman: I said that it may be at the expense of the ratepayers. In the vast majority of cases the money will come from the rents paid by tenants.

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman made it clear—I thought quite fairly—that it could be at the expense of the ratepayer.

Mr. Silverman: It could be, but I said that in the vast majority of cases the money would be provided by tenants. If there is a deficit on the housing account, it is not likely that a local authority will operate this scheme, but it could and would operate it if there were a surplus.

Mr. Eyre: On the basis of that supposition—that there was a surplus on the housing revenue account—we must look at this proposal against the background of the scheme as proposed in the Bill.
The standard amount is the amount of rebates or allowances which an authority would grant if it were operating only the model scheme. The permitted total is the limit for the amount of rebates and allowances which an authority may grant by making its scheme more favourable to the tenants than the model scheme or by granting greater rebates or allowances for special circumstances under Clause 21(1) and (2).
The Amendment would thwart the major principle of the Bill. The aim of the model scheme is to provide adequate help throughout the country in normal circumstances for those who cannot afford the fair rent. If, therefore, authorities were able under the Amendment to make their rebate schemes twice as generous as the model scheme, they could effectively prevent many, if not all, of their tenants from paying fair rents on their dwellings.
The amount of rebate granted in excess of the standard amount would have to be borne by the rates. Under the Amendment an authority could revert to the practice, now adopted by some authorities, of making a special rate fund contribution to the housing revenue account to keep down the rents paid by all tenants, irrespective of whether they were able to afford a fair rent.

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman said that if the sort of situation which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) described arose, the excess would be carried by the rates. The Minister was at great pains to argue that throughout most of the country that could not possibly happen because housing revenue accounts would be in surplus. How, then, does he explain the point he was making about the rates?

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) is perhaps putting a slightly different interpretation than I am putting on the words of his hon. Friend the Member for Aston. If there were a rebate scheme twice as generous as the model one—that was the practical implication of what the hon. Member for Aston was suggesting, since he was multiplying the 10 per cent. differential by 10 and saying that local authorities would be in a position to double the amount—a great number of tenants in that local authority would not be paying a fair rent on their dwellings because they would be receiving so much more by way of subsidy.
It therefore follows that the housing revenue account would to that extent be very seriously diminished, and there would be few cases where the housing revenue account would be showing the surplus on which the hon. Member for Aston and the hon. Member for Willesden, East, would be relying.

Mr. Freeson: I hope that the Minister will clarify this central point. My hon. Friend the Member for Aston was arguing on the basis of the Birmingham experience, which seems to be true of a large part of the country. It is estimated that there will be a £3 million surplus under the Bill within two or three years of it coming into operation.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Before it is in operation.

Mr. Freeson: I made some calculations in Committee and my figures supported what my hon. Friend said. I was rather more cautious and said that the surplus would arise within two or three years of the Bill operating. If 50 per cent. of the surplus goes to the Treasury and 50 per cent. to the general rate fund, then if there is a more generous rent rebate scheme, there is bound to be less of a surplus. There will, therefore, be no charge on the rates. In other words, there will be a lower profit or surplus on the housing revenue account.

Mr. Eyre: I accept that, and it is difficult to answer the arguments which have been adduced in regard to Birmingham because Birmingham has been exceptionally well administered for some years and is coming into a particularly good position.
However, I do not believe that that situation would necessarily apply in the long term in Birmingham if it came under an obligation, as it will under the Bill, to give much more generous rebates over a much wider area of needy tenants. One must, therefore, look at the obligations which Birmingham would have to assume for giving more generous rebates, and that would soon diminish any surplus that appeared. It all depends enormously on this consideration, which varies greatly in different parts of the country.
I repeat that if a rebate scheme were twice as generous as the model scheme, then it would follow, since the proposed rebates would be spread over a much wider area and granted on a more generous basis, as the hon. Member for Aston proposed, that a great number of tenants would not be paying fair rents.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Skinner: The Minister is arguing that, if local authorities decided to use this surplus, hypothetical at present, in the way my hon. Friend describes, being allowed flexibility up to 200 per cent., that would remove from the field many more council tenants who, in his words, would not be paying a fair rent. How can that be consistent with the view put forward by the Minister, and the Prime Minister, too, that 1¾ million council


tenants would not pay a fair rent anyway because they will have the advantage of rebates? There is no logic in the Government's argument. All my hon. Friend wants to do is to enlarge the number of those people or give a greater amount of rebate to the 1¾ million.

Mr. Eyre: I am going through the scheme and looking at it against the background of the comments made by the hon. Member for Aston. I make the assertion that, if the rebates are doubled, it follows that the rents of a great number of tenants will be reduced and, inevitably, a great number of them will not then pay a fair rent under the scheme.

Mr. Silverman: That is the object of a rebate.

Mr. Eyre: Precisely, but I am stressing that that would bring about a situation in which the surplus no longer continued to exist. Therefore, the giveaway argument—"All right; we will not spend the surplus"—would not be available because the surplus would have disappeared with the more generous rebates.
The hon. Member for Aston was absolutely right and honest when he said that the rebate might well have to be borne by the ratepayers.

Mr. Silverman: No. What I said was that, under the 10 per cent. rule, the local authority has the right to raise the money from the rates if it so desires, but as a matter of practical fact it is extremely unlikely that any local authority in deficit will improve the rebate scheme. All that the Amendment does is to allow a local authority to enlarge its rebate scheme up to a limit of 100 per cent. It is entirely discretionary; no local authority would be compelled to do so.

Mr. Eyre: I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. If the rebates are doubled it must follow that any authority's surplus will be diminished accordingly. Over the country as a whole that would mean the surplus was not available for a great number of local authorities. Even Birmingham's surplus would wither and die. Therefore, the practical continuation of the hon. Gentleman's proposition would require a rate subsidy, or something like that.
Under the Amendment an authority could revert to the practice now adopted by some authorities of making a substantial rate fund contribution to the housing revenue account to keep down the rents paid by all tenants, irrespective of whether they could afford a fair rent. This practice creates unfairly large burdens——

Mr. Silverman: They can do that now.

Mr. Eyre: Yes, and it would be unfair if authorities used the rate funds to subsidise tenants who could afford to pay the rent. That is the essence of the difference between the two sides. This practice creates unfairly large burdens on the ratepayers of the authorities concerned.
The Amendment could also lead to means-testing an unnecessarily high proportion of tenants—[Laughter.]—I am sorry if Opposition hon. Members have heard this before, but I understand that is a situation they do not like.

Mr. Freeson: The laughter is not because we have heard it so often before, but because we have stated it so often before.

Mr. Eyre: Accepting that Opposition Members do not like that idea, I must point out that if the scheme is broadened, and the subsidy is paid indiscriminately, it would be extended to various tenants who may not need subsidy. There would have to be a yardstick. Having extended the area in which decisions must be made as to whether people should have the subsidy, we might have to extend the means test.
In any case, the model scheme is broadly adequate, and does not need to be made quite so generous. There are very few existing schemes which are more generous. The hon. Gentleman was very fair when he described the Birmingham scheme. It has one or two aspects in which it is more generous than the model scheme, but there are some parts where it is not as good. The model scheme is generous. The schemes that are better are usually more generous only in certain limited respects. The model scheme will be kept under regular review, and the Secretary of State is empowered to alter its provisions.

Mr. Neil McBride: Local authorities in Wales are in a difficulty. The Secretary of State mentioned in the Bill is not the Secretary of State for the Environment, but the Secretary of State for Wales who has executive responsibility vested in him for housing in Wales. Who are the Welsh local authorities to get in touch with? The Prime Minister has declared to me that it is the Secretary of State for Wales. But if there is a hiatus in the line of communication, I should like the Minister to give guidance to the Welsh local authorities.

Mr. Eyre: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is close liaison between the Secretary of State for the purpose of the Bill, who is the Secretary of State for the Environment, and the Secretary of State for Wales. The hon. Gentleman can rely on the Secretary of State for the Environment, working with the Secretary of State for Wales, to be just as generous to tenants in Wales who are in need as to tenants in England who are in need.
The Government Amendments to increase the needs allowance, which we shall come to later, demonstrate that the Government are aware of the need to keep under review the help given by the model scheme, under which, as it will be amended, a married man with two dependent children, an income of £20 a week and a rent of £3 a week, would have to pay only £1·14p towards the rent, or less than 6 per cent. of his income. If his rent were £5 a week, he would have to pay only £1·94. This is still less than 10 per cent. of his income. If he had an income of £30 a week, he would receive no help for a rent of £3 and so would pay 10 per cent. of his income on rent. If the rent were £5 he would have to pay £3·66, which would be not unreasonable in the circumstances I have outlined.
There will inevitably be some areas of high rents for which the provisions of the scheme will be inadequate. These areas can be adequately assisted by the Secretary of State's power in Clause 20(5) to authorise a variation lowering the minimum rent or increasing the maximum amount of rebate or allowance.
My predecessor told the Standing Committee that the aim is that families with

one or more dependent children, living in typical dwellings, should not be called upon to pay more than about 10 per cent. of their income in rent, where the amount of income equals their needs allowance—in other words, the level which we all know to be not a very high one. This is set out in the Official Report at col. 739. Any alterations so authorised will attract subsidy. Government Amendment No. 52 makes this power more flexible and thus more helpful to local authorities with unusually high rents.
There will also be cases of special need which merit a more generous rebate or allowance. Some of these are already provided for in the model scheme—for example, blind persons, one-parent families, war and disability pensioners. But there will inevitably be particular cases of need which are not adequately provided for in the model. It is to meet this limited number of cases that authorities have the discretion to grant additional rebates or allowances. For such cases a financial limit of 10 per cent. above the standard amount is sufficient.
We therefore maintain that the model scheme is, reasonably generous taken against the background of the country as a whole. It is a distinct improvement on what has gone before. There is power in the Secretary of State to make the necessary adjustments. There is the 10 per cent. fund for such cases. We maintain that 10 per cent. degree of allowed flexibility under the existing scheme is sufficient to take account of the extra cases where the sympathy of the local authority would be incurred and its practical help thought to be necessary and justified.
The Bill provides also for those very few tenants who may be in receipt of a larger rebate, or allowance in Birmingham, under existing schemes when a scheme is introduced under the Bill. Such tenants will be helped by the provision in paragraph 15 that authorities can grant at their discretion an additional rebate or allowance for a transitional period. A later Government Amendment widens the provisions in the Bill as drafted to ensure that this transitional help can be given, not only where the rebate or allowance is less under the model scheme, but also where it is extinguished.
It cannot be plausibly argued that a 10 per cent. permitted total is a great curtailment of authorities' traditional freedom to grant rebates as they consider necessary. Despite exhortations by the previous Government to grant more and better rebates, the freedom has mainly been exercised to grant rebates on a less generous scale than in the model scheme and nearly 40 per cent.—this figure surprised me—of all housing authorities grant no rebate at all.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Freeson: This figure has been quoted in Committee by the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, on the Floor of the House and elsewhere. It should be made clear that although the figure is correct, it relates to 1,200 housing authorities, and the ownership of dwellings among those 1,200, is disproportionate. Speaking off the cuff, I think that rebate schemes cover about 90 per cent. of all tenants. There has been some misleading talk about the figure when it is said that 40 per cent. of housing authorities do not operate a rebate scheme. The position is not as bad, to put it mildly, as Ministers have suggested.

Mr. Eyre: I appreciate the emphasis which the hon. Member puts on the figures. I accept what he said, but if I were one of the 10 per cent. of tenants, I should be aggrieved.

Mr. Skinner: I do not know why a tenant among the 40 per cent. of local authorities not operating a rent rebate scheme should be unduly concerned. Among the authorities in Derbyshire which do not operate rent rebate schemes, and that is more than half, average rents are less than £2 a week and there is no need for a rent rebate scheme.

Mr. Eyre: I appreciate the hon. Member's feelings, which are expressed on a local basis, but it means that the houses were built a long time ago at low cost and the authorities concerned are extremely lucky. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not the position in a big city such as Birmingham where there is a tremendous slum clearance problem.
Over the country as a whole, while taking account of local variations, the

model scheme represents considerable progress and fair social progress and for these reasons I advise the House to prefer it and to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I should like to say immediately how much I support the Amendment for the obvious desirability of giving local authorities much more discretion to counter the excessive mandatory increases of rent which are to be forced on the tenants. It is symptomatic of the divisions in the House that that is precisely why the Under-Secretary does not accept the Amendment, which would reduce the number of tenants forced to pay what are called fair rents.
Apart from those arguments, which have been well worked over, I should like to develop three other good reasons why local authorities should have greater flexibility, particularly about disregarding other benefits. First, the inclusion of other benefits and other sources of income in assessing income eligibility clearly discriminates against poor households. More explicitly, it is distinctly contrary to the impression which the Government gave when previously discussing anti-poverty measures.
On the Second Reading of the Family Income Supplement Bill, the Secretary of State for Social Services said:
…many of the poorest pay large rents. The people who pay large rents are not helped by the Bill…"—[Official Report, 10th November, 1970; Vol. 806, c. 226–7.]
The clear implication is that the family income supplement is geared to the relief of general poverty among working households quite apart from housing costs, while rent rebates and rent allowances in the Housing Finance Bill will be geared to the relief of housing costs. To use one—as is the case unless this Amendment is accepted—as a means of offsetting entitlement to the other is clearly contrary both to the impression the Government gave originally and to the whole spirit of the attack upon poverty.
My second reason for asking for greater flexibility is that this would accord much better with the precedent of those other means-tested benefits where a relatively high or higher take-up has been achieved. I am thinking particularly of free school meals. Here allowance is made for a whole range of


outgoings which are in no way regarded as diminishing entitlement to that benefit. These allowances include, rent, rates, mortgage payments, insurance payments, fares to work and even such things as special diets, trade union dues, pay to home helps, day nursery or child minding costs and maintenance payments for other dependants.
It is not without significance that it is this benefit which has a much higher level of take-up than is normal with other benefits which are around 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. It avoids the absurdity evident in this case, whereby, in another context, the provision of invalidity benefit immediately reduces or terminates the right to free prescriptions. Surely it would be much better to follow the precedent of very much wider disregards if the more successful example in means testing is to be adopted. At present merely to increase the figure to 110 per cent., 10 per cent. over the level of the model scheme, will in no sense provide for that degree of flexibility.
My third reason for arguing for greater flexibility is to avoid the complexities of the disincentive and also the patent anomalies that arise from the interaction between these various benefits which is likely to be much worse as a result of the wide extent of this new benefit. Consider a man who is earning £18 a week, with three children who, through harder work or getting another job, raises his income to £19·50. Let us assume that he is paying a rent above the level of 40 per cent. of the fair rent. For each extra £1 of his earnings he loses entitlement to a rent rebate or rent allowance to the extent of 17p. A £1·50 increase in gross earings after a partial loss of family income supplement amounts to 80p.
As a result of that, the family's rent rises by 13p per week, which is the amount by which the rent rebate is reduced for the property, namely four fifths of £1, before taking the rent rebate scheme into account. The man by increasing his income by £1·50 is only 26p better off, after loss of family income supplement, and after having to pay higher tax and National Insurance contributions. With the proposed rent rebate scheme, without this greater degree of flexibility, then a man who obtains a £1·50 rise will be better off by only 13p which is a marginal rate of just over 91 per cent.
This reveals in a stark light the assertion in the White Paper that the rebate does not rob him of the incentive to increase his income. The main point is that it is anomalies that arise from the interaction between these various benefits that need to be reduced. This is a strong reason for providing the much greater flexibility given in the Amendment. The figure of 110 is far too low. The Under-secretary tried to make out that by increasing it by this small amount, after taking into account the concessions being made to the blind and the disabled, it would be enough. It is not likely to be nearly enough. If we are to avoid some gross absurdities in certain individual cases then that figure should be substantially increased.

Mr. David Stoddart: I wish to concentrate on the question of the family income supplement. The Minister has in the past declined to disregard FIS. The Amendment gives local authorities greater flexibility and enables them to disregard the supplement.
The Bill will, in effect, rob many people on family income supplement of part of their benefit. This is a case of the Government giving with one hand and taking away with the other. The Child Poverty Action Group recently published a pamphlet dealing with this point. I hope that the Minister has read it and will take heed of it. It says of the Bill:
The main scheme provides for various needs allowances which, for a married man and two children, come to £18·50 per week. If his gross income (including family allowance and FIS) is equal to this, he pays 40 per cent. of the 'fair rent'. He will pay 17 per cent. of all income above this level towards extra rent until the 'fair rent' is reached. Thus a married man with two children who earns £16 per week gross will still have to pay £2·56 (exclusive of rates) for a house for which a 'fair rent' of £6 per week has been set—even after rebate. The calculation looks like this: gross pay. £16 per week; plus family allowance, £0·90; FIS (April 1971 rate) £2·55; total income. £19·45. Total needs allowance=£18·50. Since gross income exceeds the needs allowance by 95p this tenant will pay 40 per cent. of the 'fair rent' plus 17 per cent. of 95p—i.e. £2·56 p.w. (£2·40+16p).
In other words, he is being robbed of 16p of his family income supplement.
The figures quoted are for 1st April, 1971, but since then the supplement has been revised, and the revised figures operate from 4th April this year. However, the same absurd situation applies


in spite of the increase in the family income supplement and the alterations to the needs allowance which the Minister is bringing forward tonight. In future a one-child family in which the man is earning £17 a week will pay an additional 17p in rent. The man earning £18 a week will pay an additional rent of 25p, leaving him with only 75p of his £1 family income supplement. If he earns £19 a week he will pay an extra 34p in rent, leaving him with only 16p a week of his family income supplement.

Mr. Skinner: Is my hon. Friend talking about the railway men on £19 a week who are, it is said, holding the country to ransom?

Mr. Stoddart: There are people holding the country to ransom, but they are not the railwaymen or any other body of workers. They are the people who make money from rents, interest and profits and particularly from speculation in land, which is making the housing situation so difficult.
The man with two children earning £18 will pay an additional rent of 10p a week, leaving him with less than £2 in family income supplement. If he earns £21 a week he will pay 36p in additional rent, leaving him with only 14p in family income supplement.
9.45 p.m.
Those are the figures which I have worked out both in the new rates of family income supplement and the rates of the needs allowances which the Minister intends to bring forward. This is economics gone mad. It is the means-tested State gone mad. It is yet another instance to show up the absurdity of the Bill and the total absurdity of the Government's whole policy in relation to benefits. This is the Tory means-tested State.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I do not intend to delay the House very long because, as I think will be agreed, the last two contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) have been rather fascinating. Unfortunately both of them speak a little fast and I was not able quite to grasp the full significance of the total allowances relating to this Clause of the Bill.
I am beginning to wonder how it will be possible for ordinary people to establish whether or not they are entitled to rebates under this Bill, and how far their entitlement to rebates under the Bill undermines their entitlement to other rebates which they may have, because of the means testing which goes on. It might be a very useful exercise if the Government were to explain to people who are earning £19 a week.
It is the height of impudence by the Government to introduce a Bill in which they virtually say that men who go to work all the week and earn £30 a week, which is in excess of the average wage, and who work very hard, should subject themselves to disclosure of personal and private information so that they can get the benefits of a rebate scheme, as it was referred to by the Under-Secretary of State, men who need the benefits simply because the Government introduce a Bill whereby they make rents of houses too high for men with £30 a week to afford.

Mr. McBride: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Schedule 3 there is an even more sinister means-testing provision whereby the highest wage earner in a dwelling can be deemed to be the tenant and the tenant classified as a non-dependant? Surely that is gross stupidity?

Mr. Loughlin: I agree with my hon. Friend, but unfortunately the time factor is against rational discussion of Schedule 3. I wanted to make a speech on Schedule 3. However, for the moment I am restricted to the Amendment we are debating.
To pass from general observations to the Amendment, it relates to a fundamental principle to which right hon. and hon. Gentleman opposite have paid lip service over the years—that Whitehall does not know best. Their chief criticism of the Labour Government was that they tended to say that Whitehall knows best
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman), in moving an Amendment in Committee, spoke of the situation in Birmingham where, by virtue of a reduction in interest rates alone, the surplus in Birmingham's housing revenue account was likely to be £3 million. He said that where a local authority by its management of the housing revenue


account or because of windfalls was able to introduce a better scheme than the one referred to in the Bill it should have the opportunity of doing so. In the light of statements by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite about local people knowing better than Whitehall, I would expect the Under-Secretary of State to subscribe to the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend, but apparently he now believes that Whitehall knows better than the local authorities. He says, in effect, to the local authorities, "It does not matter how competent you are in the management of your scheme, or how much surplus you have, you cannot treat your tenants in a more favourable way than that outlined by Whitehall."
What the Under-Secretary of State is really saying is that the Tory Government reserve to themselves the right to filch from the local authorities 50 per cent. of any surplus they make. I do not say this in a disrespectful way, but if, instead of his waffling reply, he had said that the Government oppose the Amendment only because they insist on their right to filch from the local council tenants 50 per cent. of the surplus they create, he would have been more honest.

Mr. Allason: The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) said that he was taking into account the Amendments which my right hon. Friend is about to move to improve the rent rebate scheme, but he did not, and the figures he gave were, therefore, very deceptive. If the man earns £18 a week and the needs allowance is £2 a week, the rent would increase not by 17p but by 25p, until the needs allowance is met. It is only after the needs allowance is exceeded that we come to the 17 per cent. Consequently, the situation is more serious than the hon. Gentleman suggested. This is not a criticism of the rent rebate scheme but of family income supplements, which we shall be discussing on a later Amendment.
This is an extremely generous rent rebate scheme. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said it was not necessary to have any rent allowance if the rent were only £2 a week. I would emphasise the fact that we are here speaking of a man with two children earning £18 per week, or a widow with two children with an income of £18

per week. On a rent of £3 such a person would be required to pay only 67p—a substantially different amount from the £2 suggested by the hon. Member for Bolsover. On a rent of £4, the sum would be 88p. If the income rises to £20 a week, the rent would be £1·17 per week instead of £3 per week, or £1·38 against £4 per week. Therefore there is a substantial benefit.
I accept that the family income supplement makes a nonsense of the whole process, and we all know the argument, but it is not relevant to this debate. Certainly on an income of £30 per week there will be no rebate on a rent of £3 per week, but on a rent of £4 per week the sum required would be only £3·36. The man on £30 per week will be asked to pay some 12 per cent. of his income. This is a generous scheme and I do not think FIS is relevant to this debate.

Mr. Freeson: The main objection to the Amendment, as I understand it, falls into three parts. The first is that the present scheme is generous enough in that it allows for a 10 per cent. tolerance, which is already provided for. The second is that in a number of cases our proposals could result in effectively lowering the general level of rents for classes of property in local authorities because the rent rebates were so widespread. The third is that in many instances our proposals would impose a greater burden upon ratepayers.
I do not think the Minister has quite understood the factual situation which would arise under the Bill. The rent rebates would not be paid from housing revenue account but from the general rate fund, with a certain reimbursement from the Government. Secondly, when the housing revenue account goes into surplus under the provisions of the Bill—which will be the case for the majority of housing authorities within a few years of the operation of the Bill—it will pay off the surplus, half to the Exchequer and half to the general rate fund and not to the housing revenue account. Therefore, with a more generous scheme there is no additional burden on the rates. The Government will be transferring about £100 million from the Exchequer to the rate fund——

It being after Ten o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and the Orders [13th March and this day] to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been

Division No. 145]
AYES
[10.00. p.m.


Abse, Leo
Edelman, Maurice
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Albu, Austen
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Leonard, Dick


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Ellis, Tom
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Armstrong, Ernest
English, Michael
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N)


Ashley, Jack
Evans, Fred
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Ashton, Joe
Ewing, Henry
Lipton, Marcus


Atkinson, Norman
Faulds, Andrew
Lomas, Kenneth


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Loughlin, Charles


Barnes, Michael
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fletcher, Raymond (Iikeston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McBride, Neil


Baxter, William
Foley, Maurice
McCartney, Hugh


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Foot, Michael
McElhone, Frank


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael


Bidwell, Sydney
Forrester, John
Mackenzie, Gregor


Bishop, E. S.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackie, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Freeson, Reginald
Mackintosh, John P.


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Galpern, Sir Myer
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Booth, Albert
Garrett, W. E.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E)


Bradley, Tom
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Marks, Kenneth


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Golding, John
Marquand, David


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C
Marsden, F.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow Provan)
Gourlay, Harry
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Buchan, Norman
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mayhew, Christopher


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Meacher, Michael


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mendelson, John


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mikardo, Ian


Cant, R. B.
Hamling, William
Millan, Bruce


Carmichael, Neil
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)
Hardy, Peter
Milne, Edward


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen;


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Molloy, William


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hattersley, Roy
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cohen, Stanley
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Coleman, Donald
Hooson, Emfyn
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Concannon, J. D.
Horam, John
Moyle, Roland


Conlan, Bernard
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Murray, Ronald King


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Oakes, Gordon


Cronin, John
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Ogden, Eric


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
O'Halloran, Michael


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen. N)
O'Malley, Brian


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oram, Bert


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice


Dalyell, Tam
Irvine, Rt. Hn. SirArthur (Edge Hill)
Orme, Stanley


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Janner, Greville
Oswald, Thomas


Davidson, Arthur
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Paget, R. T.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Palmer, Arthur


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
John, Brynmor
Pardoe, John


Deakins, Eric
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Delargy, H. J.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pendry, Tom


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Pentland, Norman


Dempsey, James
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Perry, Ernest G.


Doig, Peter
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Dormand, J. D.
Kaufman, Gerald
Prescott, John


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Kelley, Richard
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kinnock, Neil
Price, William (Rugby)


Driberg, Tom
Lambie, David
Probert, Arthur


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lamond, James
Rankin, John


Dunnett, Jack
Latcham, Arthur
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Eadie, Alex
Leadbitter, Ted
Rhodes, Geoffrey

given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Ten o'clock.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 277.

Richard, Ivor
Spearing, Nigel
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Spriggs, Leslie
Wallace, George


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Stallard, A. W.
Watkins, David


Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Steel, David
Weitzman, David


Roper, John
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Wellbeloved, James


Rose, Paul B.
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Rowlands, Edward
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Whitehead, Phillip


Sandelson, Neville
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Whitlock, William


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Swain, Thomas
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton. N. E.)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Tinn, James
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Tomney, Frank
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Sillars, James
Torney, Tom
Woof, Robert


Silverman, Julius
Tuck, Raphael



Skinner, Dennis
Urwin, T. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Small, William
Varley, Eric G.
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Wainwright, Edwin
Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Adley,Robert
Digby, Simon Wingfleld
Hordern, Peter


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Dixon, Piers
Hornby, Richard


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Drayson, G. B.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Howell, David (Guildford)


Astor, John
Dykes, Hugh
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hunt, John


Awdry, Daniel
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Iremonger, T. L.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Emery, Peter
James, David


Batsford, Brian
Eyre, Reginald
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Farr, John
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Bell, Ronald
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Jessel, Toby


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fidler, Michael
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Benyon, W.
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Jopling, Michael


Bitten, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Biggs-Davison, John
Fookes, Miss Janet
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Blaker, Peter
Foster, Sir John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Fowler, Norman
Kershaw, Anthony


Body, Richard
Fry, Peter
Kimball, Marcus


Boscawen, Robert
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gardner, Edward
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Bowden, Andrew
Gibson-Watt, David
Kinsey, J. R.


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kitson, Timothy


Bray, Ronald
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Knox, David


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Goodhart, Philip
Lane, David


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Goodhew, Victor
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gower, Raymond
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Bryan, Paul
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Le Merchant, Spencer


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus.N&amp;M)
Gray, Hamish
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Buck, Antony
Green, Alan
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Grieve, Percy
Longden, Gilbert


Burden, F. A.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Loveridge, John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Grylls, Michael
Luce, R. N.


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Gummer, Selwyn
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Carlisle, Mark
Gurden, Harold
MacArthur, Ian


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
McCrindle, R. A.


Chapman, Sydney
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McLaren, Martin


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Churchill, W. S.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Clegg, Walter
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maddan, Martin


Cooke, Robert
Haselhurst, Alan
Madel, David


Coombs, Derek
Hastings, Stephen
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Cooper, A. E.
Havers, Michael
Marten, Neil


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hawkins, Paul
Mather, Carol


Cormack, Patrick
Hay, John
Maude, Angus


Costain, A. P.
Hayhoe, Barney
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Critchley, Julian
Heseltine, Michael
Mawby, Ray


Crouch, David
Hicks, Robert
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Crowder, F. P.
Higgins, Terence L.
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hiley, Joseph
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Miscampbell, Norman


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire,W)


Dean, Paul
Holland, Philip
Moate, Roger


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Holt, Miss Mary
Money, Ernle







Monks, Mrs. Connie
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Monro, Hector
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Montgomery, Fergus
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


More, Jasper
Ridsdale, Julian
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Morgan-Giles, Rear Adm
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Tilney, John


Morrison, Charles
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Mudd, David
Rost, Peter
Trew, Peter


Murton, Oscar
Royle, Anthony
Tugendhat, Christopher


Nabarro, Sir Geralo
Russell, Sir Ronald
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Neave, Airey
St. John-Stevas, Norman
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Normanton, Tom
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Nott, John
Scott, Nicholas
Vickers, Dame Joan


Onslow, Cranley
Sharples, Richard
Waddington, David


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Osborn, John
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Simeons, Charles
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Sinclair, Sir George
Walters, Dennis


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Ward, Dame Irene


Parkinson, Cecil
Smith, Dudley (W'wick L'mington)
Warren, Kenneth


Percival, Ian
Soref, Harold
Weatherill, Bernard



Speed, Keith
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Spence, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Pink, R. Bonner
Sproat, Iain
Wiggin, Jerry


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Stainton, Keith
Wilkinson, John


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Nicholas


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M
Woodnutt, Mark


Quennell, Miss J. M
Stokes, John
Worsley, Marcus


Raison, Timothy
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Wyle, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Tapsell, Peter
Younger, Hn. George


Redmond, Robert
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)



Reed, Laurance (Bolton. E.)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Tebbit, Norman
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Rees-Davies, W. R
Temple, John M.
 Mr. Marcus Fox.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Speaker: We now come to a group of Government Amendments on which there can be no discussion because the guillotine has fallen. I understand that it is the wish of the Opposition to have a Division on Amendment No. 86. Therefore, by agreement, I will put Amendments Nos. 59 to 66 and 68 to 83 together.

Amendment made: No. 59, in page 27, line 3, at end insert:
(9A) If the amount of rebates or allowances granted for the year 1972–73 by a local authority exceeds the amount which was the permitted total for that authority for that year, but the authority satisfy the Secretary of State that, because of the changes in local authorities or local government areas made by any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to local government and the functions of local authorities in England and Wales, it is undesirable that the provisions of their rebate scheme, or as the case may be, their allowance scheme, should be varied in accordance with subsections (4) to (8) above, he may direct that the said subsections shall not apply to that authority for the year 1973–74.—[Mr. Eyre.]

Clause 24

Publicity for Schemes

Amendments made:

No. 60, in page 28, line 4, at end insert:

(2A) It shall be the duty of every authority, in addition to furnishing the statutory particulars of a rebate scheme or an allowance scheme in pursuance of subsection (2) above, to take such further steps as may appear to them best designed to secure that the provisions of the scheme come to the notice of any persons who may be entitled to a rebate or allowance under the scheme.

No. 61, in line 19, after 'scheme', insert 'in writing and'.

No. 62, in line 29, leave out 'a' and insert 'that'.

No. 63, in line 30, at end insert:
'and in any case where paragraph (b), paragraph (c) or paragraph (d) above does not apply at an interval of not more than twelve months after they last furnished them'.

No. 64, in page 29, line 10. after 'tenant', insert:
in writing and in a convenient form'.

No. 65, in line 17, leave out from 'insert' to second 'the' in line 18.

No. 66, in line 20, at end insert:
'in any rent book or similar document issued to the tenant.
If the rent book or other document in which a landlord is required to insert statutory particulars by this subsection was issued to the tenant before 1st January, 1973, the landlord shall insert the statutory particulars in it not later than 30th June, 1973; but he shall insert them in any rent book or similar document issued to the tenant on or after 1st January. 1973 before issuing it to the tenant'.—[Mr. Eyre.]

Schedule 3

Computation of rebates and allowances

Amendments made: No. 68, in page 115, line 22, leave out
'child undergoing training by any person'
and insert 'person undergoing training'.

No. 69, in line 24, leave out 'the child' and insert 'he'.

No. 70, in line 28, leave out' "husband' ".

No. 71, in line 30, leave out
'and subject to paragraphs 4 and 5 below'.

No. 72, in line 35, leave out sub-paragraph (2).

No. 73, in page 116, line 14, leave out from 'tenant' to end of line 20 and insert
'and the authority have grounds for considering that in the special circumstances of the case it would be reasonable to make their calculations under this Schedule by reference to the income of that other person and not of the tenant, they may treat that other person as the tenant, and make such payments of rebate or allowance (if any) as ought to be made on that basis.
(2) Where an authority exercise the power conferred on them by sub-paragraph (1) above, the tenant shall be treated as a non-dependant for the purposes of this Schedule, but neither the spouse nor a dependent child of the person who is treated as the tenant shall be treated as a non-dependant for those purposes.
5A. In the following provisions of this Schedule 'tenant' includes a person treated as

Division No. 146.]
AYES
[10.12 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Dean, Paul


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bryan, Paul
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Buck, Antony
Dixon, Piers


Astor, John
Bullus, Sir Eric
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Atkins, Humphrey
Burden, F. A.
Drayson, G. B.


Awdry, Daniel
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Dykes, Hugh


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Carlisle, Mark
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Batsford, Brian
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Chapman, Sydney
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Bell, Ronald
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Emery, Peter


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Churchill, W. S.
Eyre, Reginald


Benyon, W.
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Farr, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Bitten, John
Clegg, Walter
Fidler, Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Cooke, Robert



Blaker, Peter
Coombs, Derek
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Cooper, A. E.
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Body, Richard
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Boscawen, Robert
Cormack, Patrick
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bossom, Sir Clive
Costain, A. P.
Fowler, Norman


Bowden, Andrew
Critchley, Julian
Fox, Marcus


Braine, Sir Bernard
Crouch, David
Fry, Peter


Bray, Ronald
Crowder, F. P.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Gibson-Watt, David


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

a tenant under paragraph 4 or 5 above or paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 below'.

No. 74, in line 27, leave out '£9·50' and insert '£10·50'.

No. 75, in line 28, leave out '£13·50' and insert '£14·75'.

No. 76, in line 30, leave out '£13·50' and insert '£14·75'.

No. 77, in line 31, leave out '£2·50' and insert '£2·75'.

No. 78, in line 34, leave out '£10·75' and insert '£11·75'.

No. 79, in line 35, leave out '£14·75' and insert '£16·00'.

No. 80, in line 37, leave out '£14·75' and insert '£16·00'.

No. 81, in line 38, leave out '£15·50' and insert '£16.75'.

No. 82, in page 117, line 5, leave out
'or for use of furniture or for services'.

No. 83, in line 9, at end insert—
(cc) any sums payable by virtue of regulations made under section 81 of the Education Act 1944 (financial assistance for education);.—[Mr. Eyre.]

Amendment proposed:

No. 86, in page 119, line 17, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
(b) for each person in receipt of supplementary benefit…£0.70;.—[Mr. Eyre.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 259.

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Rost, Peter


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B
Loveridge, John
Royle, Anthony


Goodhart, Philip
Luce, R. N.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Goodhew, Victor
McAdden, Sir Stephen
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Gower, Raymond
MacArthur, Ian
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McCrindle, R. A
Scott, Nicholas


Green, Alan
McLaren, Martin
Sharples, Richard


Grieve, Percy
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Grylls, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Simeons, Charles


Gummer, J. Selwyn
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Sinclair, Sir George


Gurden, Harold
Maddan, Martin
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Madel, David
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marples, Rt. Hn Ernes
Soref, Harold


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Marten, Nell
Speed, Keith


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mather, Carol
Spence, John


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Maude, Angus
Sproat, Iain


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Stainton, Keith


Haselhurst, Alan
Mawby, Ray
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hastings, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Havers, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Hawkins, Paul
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M


Hay, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Stokes, John


Hayhoe, Barney
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire. W)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Heseltine, Michael
Moate, Roger
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hicks, Robert
Money, Ernle
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Higgins, Terence L
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Tebbit, Norman


Hiley, Joseph
Monro, Hector
Temple, John M.


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
More, Jasper
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Holland, Philip
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Holt, Miss Mary
Morrison, Charles
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hordern, Peter
Mudd, David
Tilney, John


Hornby, Richard
Murton, Oscar
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Nabarro, Sir Geralr
Trew, Peter


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Neave, Airey
Tugendhat, Christopher


Howell, David (Guildford)
Normanton, Tom
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Nott, John
van Straubenzee, W. R


Hunt, John
Onslow, Cranley
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Iremonger, T. L.
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Vickers, Dame Joan


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Osborn, John
Waddington, David


James, David
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Jessel, Toby
Parkinson, Cecil
Walters, Dennis


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Percival, Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Warren, Kenneth


Jopling, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner
Weatherill, Bernard


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Price, David (Eastleigh)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Wiggin, Jerry


Kershaw, Anthony
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wilkinson, John


Kimball, Marcus
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Winterton, Nicholas


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Quennell, Miss J. M
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Raison, Timothy
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Kinsey, J. R.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Woodnutt, Mark


Kitson, Timothy
Redmond, Robert
Worsley, Marcus


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Knox, David
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Younger, Hn. George


Lane, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.



Langford-Holt, Sir John
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Le Marchant, Spencer
Ridsdale, Julian
 Mr. Hamish Gray.


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)



Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Bidwell, Sydney
Cant, R. B.


Albu, Austen
Bishop, E. S.
Carmichael, Neil


Allaun, Frank (Saltord, E.)
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)


Armstrong, Ernest
Booth, Albert
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Ashley, Jack
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Clark, David (Colne Valley)


Ashton, Joe
Bradley, Tom
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Atkinson, Norman
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Cohen, Stanley


Bagier, Gordon A. 1.
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Coleman, Donald


Barnes, Michael
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Concannon, J. D.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Conlan, Bernard


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Buchan, Norman
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Baxter, William
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Cronin, John


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony







Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Janner, Greville
Pardoe, John


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Pavitt, Laurie


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pendry, Tom


Davidson, Arthur
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
John, Brynmor
Perry, Ernest G.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Prescott, John


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Probert, Arthur


Delargy, H. J.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rankin, John


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kaufman, Gerald
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Dempsey, James
Kelley, Richard
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Doig, Peter
Kinnock, Nell
Richard, Ivor


Dormand, J. D.
Lambie, David
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lamond, James
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Latham, Arthur
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Driberg, Tom
Leadbitter, Ted
Roper, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rose, Paul B.


Dunnett, Jack
Leonard, Dick
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Eadie, Alex
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rowlands, Edward


Edelman, Maurice
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Sandelson, Neville


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Ellis, Tom
Lipton, Marcus
Short, Pt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


English, Michael
Lomas, Kenneth
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamplon, N. E.)


Evans, Fred
Longhlin, Charles
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ewing, Henry
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Faulds, Andrew
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sillars, James


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
McBride, Neil
Silverman, Julius


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McCartney, Hugh
Skinner, Dennis


Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston)
McElhone, Frank
Small, William


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Foley, Maurice
Mackie, John
Spearing, Nigel


Foot, Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Spriggs, Leslie


Ford, Ben
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stallard, A. W.


Forrester, John
McNamara, J. Kevin
Steel, David


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Freeson, Reginald
Marks, Kenneth
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Marquand, David
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Garrett, W. E.
Marsden, F.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Gilbert, Dr. John
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Swain, Thomas


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Golding, John
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Meacher, Michael
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Gourlay, Harry
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Tinn, James


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mendelson, John
Tomney, Frank


Grant. John D. (Islington, E.)
Mikardo, Ian
Torney, Tom


Griffiths. Eddie (Brightside)
Millan, Bruce
Tuck, Raphael



Miller, Dr. M. S.
Urwin, T. W.


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Milne, Edward
Varley, Eric G.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Wainwright, Edwin


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Molloy, William
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Hamling, William
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wallace, George


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Watkins, David


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Weitzman, David


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Wellbeloved, James


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Moyle, Roland
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hattersley, Roy
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Murray, Ronald King
Whitehead, Phillip


Heffer, Eric S.
Oakes, Gordon
Whitlock, William


Hooson, Emlyn
Ogden, Eric
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Horam, John
O'Halloran, Michael
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oram, Bert
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Huckfied, Leslie
Orbach, Maurice
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Orme, Stanley
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Oswald, Thomas
Woof, Robert


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)



Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Paget, R. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hunter, Adam
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Irvine, Rt. Hn. SirArthur (Edge Hill)
Pannell. Rt. Hn. Charles
 Mr. Joseph Harper.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendments made:

No. 87 in page 119, line 21, leave out '£1·00' and insert '£0·70'.

No. 88 in line 23, leave out '£1·50' and insert '£0·70'.

No. 89 in page 120, line 1, leave out paragraph 15 and insert:

Transitional rebate or allowance

15.—(1) An authority may grant to any person a rebate of such an amount commencing at such time and continuing for such period and subject to such conditions as the


Secretary of State may by general or particular direction provide if—

(a) part of the rent under his tenancy was met by a rebate for the rental period immediately preceding that in which their rebate scheme comes into operation; and
(b) the condition mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) below is satisfied in his case.

(2) An authority may grant to any person an allowance of such amount commencing at such time and continuing for such period and subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may by general or particular direction provide if—

(a) part of the rent under his tenancy was met for the rental period immediately preceding that in which their allowance scheme comes into operation by an allowance granted by virtue of a scheme under a local Act for the payment of such allowances; and
(b) the condition mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) below is satisfied in his case.

(3) The condition that must be satisfied in the case of any person before he is granted a rebate or allowance by virtue of this paragraph is that the rent remaining to be met by him (after taking account of any rebate or allowance granted otherwise than by virtue of this paragraph) was less during the rental period mentioned in paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (1) or, as the case may be, paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (2) above than during the first rental period after the relevant scheme under this Act came into operation.

(4) Where an authority grant a rebate or allowance under this paragraph to a person to whom they grant a rebate or allowance apart from this paragraph, the amount granted under this paragraph shall be additional to the amount of that other rebate or allowance.

No. 91 in line 42, leave out from 'to' to 'to' in line 43 and insert:
'consider whether they ought in all the circumstances to treat the rent as reduced by an appropriate amount, and if in their opinion they ought to treat it as reduced,'.

No. 93 in page 121, line 10, leave out from 'exceeds' to 'but' in line 11 and insert:
'the minimum weekly rent mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 9 of this Schedule'.

No. 94 in line 13, leave out 'and 13' and insert '13, 14 and 16'.

No. 95 in line 28, after 'disregarding' insert:
'to the extent mentioned in paragraph 8(3) of this Schedule'.—[Mr. Eyre.]

Schedule 4

Rebates and Allowances: Procedure

Amendments made:

No. 96 in page 122, line 24, at end insert:
'and an authority may treat as spouses for the purposes of this sub-paragraph a man and a woman who formerly lived with him in the dwelling as his wife'.

No. 230 in line 25, leave out from beginning to 'spouse' in line 29 and insert:
(4) In the following provisions of this Schedule 'tenant' includes, subject to paragraph 14(3C) below, a person treated as a tenant under this paragraph or paragraph 4 or 5 of Schedule 3 above, and.

No. 97 in line 33, after 'allowance' insert:
'whether before or after their rebate scheme or allowance scheme comes into operation'

No. 98 in line 44, leave out 'tenant of his' and insert 'applicant of the

No. 99 in line 46, leave out 'in his' and insert 'of'.

No. 100 in page 123, line 2, leave out 'tenant' and insert 'applicant'.

No. 101 in line 13, leave out from second 'the' to 'during' in line 14 and insert:
'applicant and of any spouse of his

No. 102 in page 124, line 19, leave out 'tenant' and insert 'applicant'.

No. 103 in line 21, leave out 'tenant' and insert 'applicant'.

No. 104 in page 125, line 5, leave out paragraph 7.

No. 105 in line 14, at end insert:
8A. It shall not be the duty of an authority to alter a rebate or allowance under paragraph 5, 6 or 8 above if the alteration would be equal to or less than the amount of the minimum rebate or minimum allowance under the authority's rebate scheme or allowance scheme

No. 231 in line 38, at end insert:

Transitional

10A. Where—
(a) the whole or part of a person's rent under a tenancy—
(i) was met by a rebate for the rental period immediately preceding that in which the rebate scheme under this Act of the


authority who granted him that rebate comes into operation; or
(ii) was met, for the rental period immediately preceding that in which the allowance scheme under the Act of the authority in whose area his dwelling is comes into operation, by an allowance granted by virtue of a scheme under a local Act for the payment of such allowances; and
(b) the terms on which the rebate or allowance was granted for that rental period are identical with those on which rebates or, as the case may be, allowances are to be granted under the relevant scheme under this Act,
the authority may treat him, for all the purposes of this Schedule or Schedule 3 above, as if he were a person to whom they had granted under this Act a rebate or, as the case may be, an allowance for the first rental period after the relevent scheme came into operation.

No. 106 in line 47, leave out sub-paragraph (2).

No. 232 in page 126, line 28, at end insert:
'or Schedule 3 to the Housing Act 1969 or in excess of the amount which is for the time being recoverable under Schedule 6 to this Act'.

No. 107 in page 127, line 22, at end insert:
'and if they alter or confirm it they shall notify the tenant in writing of their reasons for doing so'.

No. 233 in line 24, at end insert:
(3A) When an authority determine to treat as the tenant, in pursuance of paragraph 5 of Schedule 3 above, a person who is not the tenant within the meaning of section 26 of this Act, it shall be their duty to notify of that determination both the person who will fall to be treated as the tenant as a result of the determination and the person who would have been considered eligible for a rebate or an allowance but for the determination.
(3B) When an authority determine to treat as the tenant, in pursuance of paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 above or paragraph 1 of this Schedule, a person who is not the tenant or, as the case may be, not the sole tenant, within the meaning of section 26 of this Act, it shall be their duty to notify of that determination the person who will fall to be treated as the tenant as a result of it and to take such (if any) steps as they consider reasonable to notify of the determination the person or persons who would have been considered eligible for a rebate or an allowance but for the determination.
(3C) The references to the tenant in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) above shall accordingly be construed as including every person to whom sub-paragraph (3A) or (3B) above applies.

No. 234 in line 36, leave out 'are or have been in receipt of supplementary' and insert:

'may be entitled to receive supplementary benefit or are or have been in receipt of such'.—[Mr. Eyre.]

Clause 39

APPLICATION TO RENT OFFICER BY LOCAL AUTHORITY

Amendment made:

No. 110 in page 42, line 41, at end insert:
(9) The said regulations shall confer on the landlord and the tenant a right to object to the determination of a rent by the rent officer on an application under this section and, on receipt of such an objection in circumstances prescribed by the regulations, shall provide for the reference of the matter to a rent assessment committee.—[Mr. Eyre.]

Clause 41

CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION OF RENT

Amendment made:

No. 111 in page 44, line 36, at end insert 'regulated'.

Clause 43

PROTECTION FOR TENANT WITH SECURITY OF TENURE

Amendment made:

No. 112 in page 45, line 24, after 'another', insert 'regulated'.—[Mr Eyre.]

Clause 45

PROTECTION OF TENANT WITH SECURITY OF TENURE WHERE GRANT-AIDED IMPROVEMENT IS CARRIED OUT

Amendment made:

No. 113 in page 47, line 44, at end insert:
'and the increase of rent effected by the agreement is wholly or partly to take account of the carrying out of the works'.—[Mr Eyre.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That at this day's Sitting the Motion relating to Ways and Means (Horserace Totalisator and Betting Levy Boards) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 47

STATUTORY TENANTS BY SUCCESSION

Mr. Eyre: I beg to move Amendment No. 114 in page 49, line 11, leave out 'paragraphs 5' and insert:
'and, immediately before his death he was still the tenant (whether protected or statutory), paragraphs'.
This is a drafting Amendment to cure a technical defect spotted by the College of law, to which we are grateful for drawing our attention to it.
The new paragraph 10(1)(a) of Schedule 1 to the Rent Act, 1968, inserted by Clause 47, applies paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of that Schedule in specified circumstances. However, paragraph 5 would not be apt for this purpose as it stands, and new words are inserted by this Amendment to dispense with the need to apply paragraph 5.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I beg to move Amendment No. 115, in page 49, line 32, at end insert:
In determining for the purposes of section 2(3) and 70(3) of the Rent Act 1968 whether the part of the rent attributable to attendance board or use of furniture is substantial parts or proportions of 15 per cent. or less shall not be considered to be substantial.
The purpose of the Amendment is to give statutory authority to the definition of what constitutes a furnished tenancy. It is a definition which accords substantially with the present law, and it accords overwhelmingly with the law as it is enforced by the courts. The difference is that there would be a clear and firm test to enable those advising families in possession of furnished rent books and occupying premises containing some furniture to say," Notwithstanding that you have a furnished rent book, your tenancy is protected by the Rent Acts. You will have security from eviction. You will be given the right to go to the rent officer to have a fair rent determined".
Earlier today we discussed the hardships suffered by many furnished tenants

and the extent to which furnished tenants are the Cinderellas in housing. These families bear the brunt of the immensely rapid rise in property prices and in rents which occur in the centres of cities.
I ask the Government to recognise that, if they are not prepared to give either security of tenure or rent allowances to furnished tenants, it is immensely important that these pariahs in the housing situation should be clearly defined and should know that they are the pariahs and that the Government are treating them as such.
When one is consulted by such a family—whether one is consulted as a lawyer or as a Member of Parliament; I am consulted in both capacities—one is presented with details such as the following which reached me at my surgery last Monday:
In my house I have two single beds, one rickety old table, four ancient chairs, one small old cupboard, one small chest of drawers, one armchair, and some lino on the floor".
I went to see the house for myself. This family pays £6 a week for a single room. Is that to be regarded as furnished?
As the law stands, I can say to this family," The chances are that in five cases out of six if you go to court and challenge this it will be declared to be an unfurnished tenancy and you cannot be evicted. You can then apply to the rent officer and have the rent brought down to a fair rent. Your landlord will not be able to evict you as a punishment for your applying to have the rent regulated."
I am under the constraint that I know that if one particular judge is sitting at Marylebone County Court on the day that the case is heard the tenancy will be held to be furnished, the court will dismiss the application, and the tenancy will remain classified as furnished.
I have challenged this issue in 21 cases. So far, in 19 of those cases I have been successful in getting accepted my view of the law which is embodied in the Amendment. It is the view that where the proportion of rent attributable to the furniture is less than 15 per cent. the tenancy is not furnished.
As the Minister reminded the Standing Committee when we discussed this issue on Clause 47, there has been one recent


case—Goel v. Sagoo—in which the court accepted a tenancy as furnished where 6⅔per cent. of the rent was attributable to furniture; and in that case the tenant was refused the declaration that his tenancy was unfurnished and he was evicted.
This situation arises ordinarily where a furnished tenant is being threatened with eviction. I wonder how many hon. Members have been present when families have been evicted. I have. I do not wish to see it happen again. I have found that by raising the question whether premises are furnished or unfurnished and whether the landlord has a right, which the law grants him at present, to evict the family virtually without check one can in most cases succeed. But the law is uncertain. The Amendment would add certainty.
10.30 p.m.
The question was considered by the Francis Committee, which recommended that instead of having a test of substantiality on the lines I have suggested—I find it difficult to imagine that anyone can seriously suggest that less than 15 per cent. is substantial anyway—the test should simply be whether the landlord provided the essentials of living, including blankets, cooking utensils, cutlery and so on. I hope the House will not accept any such definition but will recognise that we have a very serious problem in our central city areas because the housing pressures which have resulted from the rapidly escalating value of land—I mean" price of land", because there is a sharp distinction between value and price of land—have created immense problems for those on relatively low incomes seeking accommodation in central city areas. It is they who are accepting allegedly furnished tenancies, very few of which are furnished.
The danger is that the Government are contemplating an Amendment which would deprive such families of the protection they have now. I trust that even the present Administration would not contemplate that. I hope they will accept my Amendment, because the pressures for evictions are growing constantly. We have heard a great deal in the past few days from the Government about their plans for extending improvement grants and their reliance on improvement grants to renew the centres of our cities. I hope

the Minister has read the editorial in today's Evening Standard, which welcomes this. It says:
At last a concerted attack is to be made on what is perhaps the single most disturbing area of the housing question—the decaying and overcrowded areas of inner London whose squalor and despair is epitomised by North Kensington.
Redevelopment and rehabilitation are promised. But as the G.L.C. must realise, this will inevitably be problematical. For there is always a danger that improved housing will lead landlords to evict poorer tenants and sell up to better-off families for a profit.
The G.L.C. will face considerable opposition from local communities like North Kensington unless it can make it clear that the improvements are intended to benefit those who need them most—the existing population.
This will not be the case if what is happening now is allowed to continue. Landlords obtain possession of premises from controlled, regulated tenants, and until they get the whole house free they put in furnished tenants. As soon as the whole house is full of furnished tenants they evict the lot, apply for improvement grants, seek to convert the house into luxury accommodation and then re-sell.
The effect of the improvement grants in the stress areas is disastrous. But it is compounded by the fact that furnished tenants can be evicted virtually at will. The security that can be given by the rent tribunal is negligible.
The Amendment would make the law certain in a field where it is uncertain. It would provide protection for the vast majority of working-class families who are compelled to accept furnished accommodation.
Earlier today, and in Committee, the Minister said he was seeking to distinguish between the long-term and short-term furnished tenant. He will find that overwhelmingly the working-class family in furnished accommodation are long-term tenants, and that the test in the Amendment will for the most part protect the working-class family and will not protect the tenant of luxury accommodation. I hope therefore that the Government will find it possible to accept the Amendment. If not, I hope that the House will compel them to do so.

Mr. George Cunningham: I should like to congratulate


my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) on his persistence in moving an Amendment in this sense. He has great experience of this matter both as a Member of Parliament and as a lawyer. My experience is limited to that of a Member. However, anyone who represents a constituency in inner London is familiar with the weakness of his position which the existence of some bits of furniture in accommodation introduces. It is one of the factors in the social change in areas of inner London such as Barnsbury in my constituency where the whole object of the developers is to drive out the existing population and bring in new population able to pay the much higher prices for the emptied houses, houses emptied of controlled tenants.
I have read carefully the arguments on this subject that were rehearsed at rather greater length in Standing Committee, and I have gone over the Minister's reply. He did not rebut the case put by my hon. Friends. He seemed to argue that if one introduced the arithmetical test of what was furnished accommodation, there was still left an area of judgment as to what constituted furniture, whether furniture was attached, built in and so on. That is true. One cannot remove all discretion from the court, and it is no part of the intention of the Amendment to remove the exercise of judgment from the court.
But in so far as it could be done, it should be done. We are all familiar with examples of tenants being ignorant whether the courts would hold that their accommodation was furnished. It costs money to test an issue and so tenants often do not test it when the case seems to them or their advisers to be marginal. The Amendment would introduce further certainty.
In Committee, the right hon. Gentleman argued that such a change, as other recommendations of the Francis Committee, would have to be considered when there was more time. It reflects badly on the Government that they accept that this is an important factor and yet say that they will deal with it when they have another opportunity to do so. The Amendment is in order in this Bill and if it is a good Amendment, we might as well make it.
There was another issue on which the Minister showed himself to be totally immovable, namely, the increase in penalties for the harassment of tenants. He said that there was no opportunity to make the desired Amendment, an Amendment recommended by the Francis Committee, and he said that he would consider the matter when he had the opportunity to do so. The Minister smiles, but because he did not find the opportunity, some of us, who looked into the matter with rather more interest than he possesses, gave him the opportunity to do so. He could not resist and as a result the Amendment was made.
Here we have a similar instance. This is a matter to which the Francis Committee attached importance. The Minister has not been able to mount a reasoned objection to the Amendment, but merely says that the matter needs more consideration, that we should discuss it on another occasion.
Given the human suffering that is involved, that is not good enough. If anyone is prepared to stand at the Government Despatch Box and argue that if rent covers less than 15 per cent. of the furniture in the opinion of the court, then that ought nevertheless to be treated as furnished accommodation, he should have the guts to say "We are not doing anything for those people". He should not argue that he has not had time to think about it properly. If the Minister argues that, then hon. Members opposite below the Gangway should have the guts to say that while they support him generally they will not support him on this. The Government do not have a case. Hon. Members who have read the Committee proceedings will recognise that and also that this Amendment is well deserving of their support.

Mr. John Fraser: I hope that the House will support this Amendment which is very moderately worded and which seeks to clarify the law. We should like to go much further and provide fuller security for furnished tenants. Let no one underestimate the extent of furnished tenancies. In Greater London, according to the Francis Report 23 per cent. of all privately-rented accommodation was let as furnished accommodation and the figure is growing fairly rapidly outside London to around 15 per


cent. of all private rented accommodation. This is becoming a major problem.
Those who live in such accommodation are living on the edge of a precipice. About 50 per cent. of families living in such accommodation have children. What do they face? They never know when their tenancy will end, they are unable to collect those personal belongings, furniture and other things which create a bond insides a family, a pride in possessions. They lack such things.
Secondly, they are a sector of the community which pay, in relation to the value of the accommodation, the highest rents of all. All of them know that if they apply to have their rents reduced by the rent tribunal, they are in most cases automatically giving themselves six months notice to quit. True, the tribunal can extent the period of security but in most cases it is six months.
Perhaps the worst affected victims of the furnished accommodation situation are the children. What happens is that the families move from furnished accommodation to furnished accommodation and the children frequently have to change their schools. Their education is interrupted and the bond between children and school is broken. These are often the children who need a stable educational background and the kind of stability in school which they may not have been able to get from their families because of the constant change in accommodation.
Tenants of furnished accommodation are in a sense urban gipsies, chased from place to place every time they make a complaint or appear to be settling. These people must be accorded security. We have not the time to give the kind of mature consideration needed to extending the security of tenure to the vast majority of tenants of furnished accommodation. There are the problems of students and owner-occupiers sharing their houses. We have not time to deal with them but we have time to accept this Amendment which says in effect that if less than 15p in the pound of a person's rent is attributable to furniture they should be given security.
What we are trying to do is to protect those tenants where furniture and fittings are a sham. 
This House surely has no brief for the landlord who puts in a few

sticks of furniture, some junk from the local saleroom or junk shop, and pretends that the accommodation is furnished. We are out to protect that kind of tenant, who can make no complaint about the state of the furniture. He can at least go to the public health inspector about the state of the premises but he cannot complain about the rickety wardrobe. If we accept the Amendment we ensure that rents fixed by private landlords in furnished accommodation will be kept at a reasonable level. The higher the rent is fixed, the more likely it is that the premises will be found to be unfurnished, because the higher the rent the lower will be the proportion of rent attributable to the furniture.
10.45 p.m. 
We want to do away with this sham. We want to give certainty to tenants of sham furnished accommodation who know little enough of their legal rights. In Islington, about 75 or 80 per cent. of tenants had never heard of the Rent Acts. The least we can do for them is to provide certainty in the law and to make it absolutely plain that if as small a proportion of the rent as 15 per cent. is not attributable to furniture, they should be given the security which they and their families deserve. I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Eyre: The Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) who has considerable professional experience of these matters. It would modify the borderline between furnished and unfurnished accommodation by providing, in effect, that if the furniture element of the rent were less than 15 per cent. of the whole rent the letting would be regarded as unfurnished. It would also modify, by referring to Section 70(3), the borderline between furnished tenancies without substantial board and furnished tenancies with substantial board, the latter tenancies being outside the furnished code of protection.
The Amendmentis much simpler than the corresponding Opposition Amendment which was debated in Committee—and I am relieved about that. It makes the minimum amendment to the Act needed to impose the basic 15 per cent. minimum standard. In the corresponding debate in Committee the Minister said that the most appropriate time for


any legislation on this border line would clearly be when there was legislation to implement the Francis Report but added that, nevertheless, if and when the Government announced the introduction of legislation to provide furnished rent allowances, that would be a proper occasion for Parliament to consider the border line question. If therefore there is a new Bill to introduce furnished rent allowances opportunity will be available for the question of the border line to be raised again.
At this stage there is little which the Government can reasonably add to the points made in the very good debate in Committee. It is noted that the Opposition have, since the Committee stage, streamlined their Amendment. The new version, no less than any other suggestion made to deal with this thorny problem, is clearly worthy of detailed study. It does not, of course, altogether dispose of the difficulties mentioned in Committee of finding a solution which seeks to define "substantial" by reference to some rigid proportion. But that does not make it any the less deserving of full examination.
The Amendment, in fixing a percentage standard for substantiality, simply shifts the scope for argument on to the value to be placed on the furniture and on how that value is to be converted to a rental amount. Also, rental values vary widely in different parts of the country, while furniture values either do not vary or, to the extent that they do, they do so much less and in different ways. A rigid percentage would therefore apply unevenly over the country.

Mr. Freeson: Half the 500,000 estimated furnished tenancies are believed to be concentrated in one part of the country—in London, and indeed in inner London. Others can be identified in certain specific city areas. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is straining his argument a little too far.

Mr. Eyre: I am naturally affected by what the hon. Gentleman says. I realise the nature of the very serious problem in London, and I appreciate that London Members are particularly aware of them. But the rest of the country sometimes wants its problems to be borne in mind.
There are large numbers of furnished tenancies in Birmingham and other parts of the country, and the formula to be devised must take account of the problem there.
I feel that the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) was strong in what he said in the debate on these points which I am mentioning, and that he was too sharp in dismissing what is detachability in considering what is furniture. It is a material point, and these two matters together are of practical difficulty and have to be taken together. This rigid percentage may force occasional nonsense on the courts in establishing whether rental values are high or cheap.

Mr. George Cunningham: The courts have to decide whether a fixed wardrobe, for instance, is a piece of furniture. That is bad enough, but, having decided that, it would be easier if they did not have to decide what constitutes "substantial". They have to exercise that discretion. How does the hon. Gentleman answer that?

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly satisfied with his own argument and I quite understand that. Nevertheless, the Francis Committee recommended against the arithmetical approach, which it described as inapt.
The hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) in Committee mentioned that a number of possible formulae had been mooted from time to time. The Government's study of the various possible solutions will go on. There is a wealth of evidence and argument available to the Department on this, not only from debates in Parliament but from conference records and papers, correspondence, and the Francis Committee. Even so, the Government recognise that any new proposals would need to be tested by scrutiny by a number of bodies outside the Department before recommending alternative proposals, and the Government would want to be as sure as possible that the new formula would stand the test of time; they would need to reach an informed view of the extent to which it would in the long run help tenants and prospective tenants.
The Government are well aware that the House will probably want to know,


in connection with any legislation to introduce rent allowances, the developments in the Government's continuing examination. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) and other hon. Members on both sides can be assured that my right hon. Friend will take a close interest in that continuing examination. No commitment can, of course, be given on whether a satisfactory solution can be found.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Is all this guff coming from a nice Minister just a recipe for total inaction and delay, without regard to the concern of thousands of tenants in inner London constituencies such as those which have been represented in the debate here today? Surely the Minister must have some compassion towards those people, and do something quickly?

Mr. Eyre: I understand the feelings of the hon Member, but there must be recognition of the fact that there are these practical difficulties, and that consultation is necessary to devise the best way to deal with this matter on a long-term basis. I can assure the hon. Member and others who are concerned about this matter that there will be continuing

Division No. 147.]
AYES
[10.55 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Cohen, Stanley
Evans, Fred


Albu, Austen
Coleman, Donald
Ewing, Henry


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Concannon, J. D.
Faulds, Andrew


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Conlan, Bernard
Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham, Ladywood)


Ashley, Jack
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Ashton, Joe
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston)


Atkinson, Norman
Cronin, John
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Foley, Maurice


Barnes, Michael
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Foot, Michael


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Ford, Ben


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Forrester, John


Baxter, William
Dalyell, Tam
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony (Wedgwood)
Davidson, Arthur
Freeson, Reginald


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Garrett, W. E.


Bishop, E. S.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Gilbert, Dr. John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Deakins, Eric
Golding, John


Booth, Albert
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Delargy, H. J.
Gourlay, Harry


Bradley, Tom
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Dempsey, James
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Doig, Peter
Griffiths, Eddle (Brightside)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dormand, J. D.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Buchan, Norman
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Driberg, Tom
Hamling, William


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Campbell, I. Dunbartonshire, W.)
Dunn, James A.
Hardy, Peter


Cant, R. B.
Dunnett, Jack
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Carmichael, Neil
Eadie, Alex
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Edelman, Maurice
Hattersley, Roy


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Heffer, Eric S.


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Ellis, Tom
Hooson, Emlyn


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
English, Michael
Horam, John

close examination, and that my right hon Friend will take an interest in this matter, and that this is a point which the Government will keep in the forefront of their mind.

Mr. Crosland: When a Minister speaks of the Government keeping something in the forefront of their mind, and when a Minister speaks of continuing close observation and examination, that means, as it does in this case, that absolutely nothing has been done. The Government have had the Francis Report for many months. The Under-Secretary of State a few minutes ago said that a great deal of discussion, examination and exchange of views had gone on in the Department from which a great deal of advantage had been gained, but he could not advance further until there were consultations with certain outside bodies. Why could not these consultations have started six months ago and been concluded three months ago? The fact is that there has been total inactivity inside the Department on this, and we shall vote strongly in favour of the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 275.

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marsden, F.
Rowlands, Edward


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Sandelson, Neville


Huckfield, Leslie
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mayhew, Christopher
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Meacher, Michael
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton. N. E.)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mendelson, John
Silkin Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hunter, Adam
Mikardo, Ian
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Irvine, Rt. Hn. SirArthur (Edge Hill)
Millan, Bruce
Sillars, James


Janner, Greville
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Silverman, Julius


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Milne, Edward
Skinner, Dennis


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Small, William


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Molloy, William
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Spearing, Nigel


John, Brynmor
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Spriggs, Leslie


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Stallard, A. W.


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Steel, David


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Moyle, Roland
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Murray, Ronald King
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Oakes, Gordon
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Kaufman, Gerald
Ogden, Eric
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Kelley, Richard
O'Halloran, Michael
Swain, Thomas


Kinnock, Neil
O'Malley, Brian
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lambie, David
Oram, Bert
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Lamond, James
Orbach, Maurice
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Latham, Arthur
Orme, Stanley
Tinn, James


Leadbitter, Ted
Oswald, Thomas
Tomney, Frank



Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Torney, Tom


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Paget, R. T.
Urwin, T. W.


Leonard, Dick
Palmer, Arthur
Varley, Eric G.


Lestor, Miss Joan
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Wainwright, Edwin


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Pardoe, John
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Wallace, George


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pavitt, Laurie
Watkins, David


Lipton, Marcus
Pendry, Tom
Weitzman, David


Lomas, Kenneth
Pentland, Norman
Wellbeloved, James


Loughlin, Charles
Perry, Ernest G.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lyon, Alexander (W. York)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Whitehead, Phillip


McBride, Neil
Price, William (Rugby)
Whitlock, William


McCartney, Hugh
Probert, Arthur
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


McElhone, Frank
Rankin, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


McGuire, Michael
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mackie, John
Richard, Ivor
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Mackintosh, John P.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Woof, Robert


McNamara, J. Kevin
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)



Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Roper, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Marks, Kenneth
Rose Paul B.
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Marquand, David
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
 Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dean, Paul


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bryan, Paul
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Dixon, Piers


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Buck, Antony
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Astor, John
Bullus, Sir Eric
Drayson, G. B.


Atkins, Humphrey
Burden, F. A.
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Awdry, Daniel
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Dykes, Hugh


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Campbell, Rt.Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Eden, Sir John


Balnlel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Carlisle, Mark
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Batsford, Brian
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Chapman, Sydney
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Bell, Ronald
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Emery, Peter


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Churchill, W. S.
Eyre, Reginald


Benyon, W.
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Farr, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Clegg, Walter
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Biffen, John
Cooke, Robert
Fidler, Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Coombs, Derek
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Blaker, Peter
Cooper, A. E.
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Body, Richard
Cormack, Patrick
Fookes, Miss Janet


Boscawen, Robert
Costain, A. P.
Fortescue, Tim


Bossom, Sir Clive
Critchley, Julian
Fowler, Norman


Bowden, Andrew
Crouch, David
Fox, Marcus


Braine, Sir Bernard
Crowder, F. P.
Fry, Peter


Bray, Ronald
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gardner, Edward


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Gibson-Watt, David







Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Loveridge, John
Rost, Peter


Goodhart, Philip
Luce, R. N.
Royle, Anthony


Goodhew, Victor
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Russell, Sir Ronald


Gower, Raymond
MacArthur, Ian
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McCrindle, R. A.
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Green, Alan
McLaren, Martin
Scott, Nicholas


Grieve, Percy
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Sharples, Richard


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Macmillan. Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Grylls, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Gummer, J. Selwyn
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Simeons, Charles


Gurden, Harold
Maddan, Martin
Sinclair, Sir George


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Madel, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Marten, Neil
Soref, Harold


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mather, Carol
Speed, Keith


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Maude, Angus
Spence, John


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Sproat, Iain


Haselhurst, Alan
Mawby, Ray
Stainton, Keith


Hastings, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Havers, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Hawkins, Paul
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Hay, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hayhoe, Barney
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Stokes, John


Heseltine, Michael
Moate, Roger
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hicks, Robert
Money, Ernle
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Higgins, Terence L.
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Hiley, Joseph
Monro, Hector
Tebbit, Norman


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Montgomery, Fergus
Temple, John M.


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
More, Jasper
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Holland, Philip
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Holt, Miss Mary
Morrison, Charles
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Hordern, Peter
Mudd, David
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S)


Hornby, Richard
Murton, Oscar
Tilney, John


Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Neave, Airey
Trew, Peter


Howell, David (Guildford)
Normanton, Tom
Tugendhat, Christopher


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Nott, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Hunt, John
Onslow, Cranley
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Iremonger, T. L.
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Osborn, John
Vickers, Dame Joan


James, David
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Waddington, David


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Jessel, Toby
Parkinson, Cecil
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Percival, Ian
Walters, Dennis


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Ward, Dame Irene


Jopling, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner
Warren, Kenneth


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Weatherill, Bernard


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Kershaw, Anthony
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wiggin, Jerry


Kimbail, Marcus
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Wilkinson, John


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Winterton, Nicholas


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Raison, Timothy
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Kinsey, J. R.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Kitson, Timothy
Redmond, Robert
Woodnutt, Mark


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Worsley, Marcus


Knox, David
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Lane, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Younger, Hn. George


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David



Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Le Merchant, Spencer
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Mr. Kenneth Clarke and


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridsdale, Julian
 Mr. Hamish Gray.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

It being after Eleven o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and the Orders [13th March and this day] to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Eleven o'clock.

Schedule 6

RESTRICTION ON RENT INCREASES

Amendments made:

No. 117, in page 136, line 37, at end insert:
(4) Where any provision of this Schedule imposes a rent limit for a statutory period in the period of delay, section 22(2) of the Rent


Act 1968 shall have effect as if for references to the registered rent there were substituted references to that rent limit.

No. 118, in line 43, at end insert:
(2) The said Schedule 3, and not the preceding provisions of this Schedule, shall apply where a tenancy becomes a regulated tenancy by virtue of Part III of this Act and the first registration is before the year 1973.

No. 119, in page 137, line 34, at end insert:
(8) Subject to the next following sub-paragraph, the repeal by this Act of section 52 of, and of Schedule 3 to, the Housing Act 1969 shall not apply where the date of registration of rent mentioned in paragraph 1 of the said Schedule 3 falls before the year 1973.

No. 120, in line 37, at end insert:
'for all purposes as from the coming into force of this Act'.—[Mr. Eyre.]

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Amery.]

Bill, as amended, to be further considered tomorrow.

AGRICULTURAL INVESTMENT ORDER

11.10 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Mills): I beg to move,
That the Agricultural Investment (Variation of Rate of Grant) Order 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th March, be approved.
In my right hon. Friend's statement to the House on 1st March on the Government's determinations following the Annual Farm Price Review, he announced that it had been decided to switch about 60 per cent. of the fertiliser subsidy to end prices to give the farming industry greater flexibility in the application of resources. Hon. Members will have an opportunity to debate the reduction in fertiliser subsidy when the new rates, to come into operation on 1st June, are submitted for the approval of the House. The order for this will be laid tomorrow.
Horticulturists, however, are not able to recoup the loss of the fertiliser subsidy through end price awards in the Annual Review, and as announced it is proposed to offset the loss to them by increasing the combined grant rate for improvements carried out under the Horticulture Improvement Scheme from 35 to 40 per cent.
At the moment, growers receive a basic rate of grant under the Horticulture Act, 1960, of 33⅓ per cent., and this cannot be changed without fresh legislation. In addition they receive a 1⅔per cent. supplementary grant under the Agriculture Act, 1967, which can be varied by order. The Variation Order we are now considering will increase it to 6⅔ per cent.
This total combined grant rate of 40 per cent. will be available—subjectto the approval of the House—from 10th April, 1972, in respect of applications made and the provision of facilities eligible under the Scheme and installed on or after that date. The increase in the grant is equivalent to an injection in a full year of approximately £750,000 into the United Kingdom horticultural industry at the present rate of applications under the Scheme, which should give the industry as a whole at least as much as it is losing by the reduction in the fertiliser subsidy.
The increase in the effective rate of grant under the Horticulture Improvement Scheme will direct assistance to the field in which it can best help the industry to equip itself yet more effectively. Growers have not been slow to invest in the equipment of their holdings, with Horticulture Improvement Scheme assistance, and upwards of £85 million worth of work has been approved for grant since the first Scheme was introduced in 1960. That is no small figure.
The higher supplement will make the Scheme that much more attractive and the industry has accepted this means of making good the loss of income attributable to the reduction in the fertiliser subsidy. In view of the consideration that has always been needed by and accorded to the horticultural sector, I hope the increase will receive acceptance here today. I have no hesitation in commending the increased rate of grant to the House or in asking for approval to be given to this Statutory Instrument.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Not for the first time in the past week or so, it is my pleasant duty to congratulate a virgin Minister on his maiden speech from the Dispatch Box. We are glad to have the new Parliamentary Secretary facing us. We have already encountered the hon. Gentleman as a maiden Minister in Committee, but it is


only right to welcome him to the Treasury Bench in the Chamber.
It is also my pleasant duty to welcome another attractive force to the battery of Ministers and aides-de-camp facing us. I refer, of course, to the hon. Member for Keighley (Miss Joan Hill), who has been appointed P.P.S. to the Minister. If nothing else, her presence will help make more pleasant the hours that we spend facing one another in agriculture debates.
There is certain merit in the Parliamentary Secretary's first speech in the House. Whereas on his first ministerial appearance in Committee he refused everything that we put to him, we are glad for his generosity on this occasion. We hope that the new broom that he brings to the Department will affect some of his colleagues on the Government Front Bench.
We welcome the increase. Indeed, we are forced to welcome it. Conditions have been imposed upon the industry by the Government's actions and this is an attempt to rectify what they have done. As I say, we welcome the increase as a lifeline towards the industry.
We are not so sure that we welcome some of the reasons for the increase. It is swings and roundabouts with a vengeance when the Government, having brought in an Annual Price Review which slashes the fertiliser subsidy, have to come back a month later with a special order to increase the grant to try to restore the loss in the subsidy. This is a curious way for a non-interventionist Government to behave. But, as in other spheres, their record in the movement away from intervention and direct support does not provide roses even in the field of horticulture. Therefore, they are rectifying one mistake.
There is another reason besides the switch in the fertiliser grant, to which I want to return. I refer to the difficulties that the industry envisages as we move into the Common Market. I thought that the Minister might have referred to the need to give direct support to the industry in this way. I hope that it is not one of those things wrapped up in the voluminous regulations which I have been trying not to work my way through, but to sort out over 10 hours today which might be effected on our entry.
We know the problem. Because of our climate, the industry will have to incur extra costs in the provision of glasshouses, and so on, to compete on something approaching level terms with the great horticulture industry of the Common Market. If we are to enter the Common Market, it is right that we should be given this kind of support.
Is the switch from fertiliser subsidy to this form of grant the right way to do it? I should have welcomed some exception on fertiliser for the horticulture industry.
The Minister said that we would get greater flexibility in the use of resources by leaving it to the individual to decide. With some of the difficulties facing the industry, it will be a difficult decision to make. The cut in the fertiliser subsidy to the industry could have been rectified by taking a separatist approach to it. That would seeem a logical step to take.
The hon. Gentleman said that this proposal will equal the loss on fertiliser subsidy to the horticulture industry. I think he said that no more will equal the loss. On what does he base his figures? It seems a difficult equation, because both depend on take-up. Take-up will depend on what confidence the industry has following our entry into the Common Market. I do not see how that equation could be made. Therefore, for that reason, I think that the fertiliser problem could have been dealt with in a separate, direct way. That is not disputing the need for the extra investment.
Finally, the Minister referred to £85 million already approved. I take it that that refers specifically to the horticulture industry. To what period is the Minister referring? Is that since the passing of the 1960 Act, and nothing more? This is a good figure. The hon. Member for Worcester—

Sir Gerald Nabarro: Worcestershire, South.

Mr. Buchan: Worcestershire, South. The hon. Gentleman always gives me the impression of being the Basil Brush of the Tory Party. However, I am glad to get his agreement.

Sir G. Nabarro: I will do a little mental arithmetic for the hon. Gentleman if he cannot do it for himself. It is 12 years


since 1960, and 12 into £85 million gives an average of £7·08 million per annum, which seems quite a reasonable figure.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman can count, too. We have depths upon depths on the other side of the House. It seems a reasonable take-up, and I think that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me.
The industry is keen, and what we want an assurance about tonight is that the kind of equation that has been made has been made with confidence and the take-up will continue to equalise fertiliser and show that the industry is prepared to meet the competitive strain that will be put upon it.
I conclude with those few words of general acceptance of the Minister and general acceptance of the order.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: I, too, welcome my hon. Friend on making his first speech at the Dispatch Box on a horticultural topic and I hope that in all his future horticultural speeches from that Box he will support the industry in the generous way that he has done this evening. We appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend has begun. We hope that he will continue in that way and will not alter in the future.
I welcome, too, my hon. & learned Friend the Minister of State at the Home Office. His presence on the Front Bench is obviously nothing whatever to do with any subsidy business. Undoubtedly, he is here because of the vast horticulture industry that he is building, which is one of the greatest disgraces of the Government, and if my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary truly wishes to help British horticulture—and that is what the order is about—let him talk to his hon. & learned Friend and let us cut back on the empire building in horticulture by the Home Office.
I must come strictly to the order and welcome it and say how vital it is that money should be injected into the able—and abler—sections of the industry. There is no doubt that the switch from fertiliser subsidy, which was paid to the inefficient and the efficient, to this new method will put the same amount of money—or I think my hon. Friend said a little more

money—into the industry as in the past, and it will be put in the sector in which it is most needed in order to build up the industry so that it can compete with the hard times that undoubtedly lie ahead. When these hard times that lie ahead for certain sectors of the industry are considered, I hope that my hon. Friend will have early words with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, not about getting the cash for this proposal but about the value-added tax situation, which is very worrying in the non-edible sector of British horticulture.
I understand that the grant that we are considering will be available to all sectors of British horticulture—in the edible, ornamental and nursery stock sectors. It is essential that those sectors, which will be sadly hit by VAT, should be protected by their Minister of Agriculture, and I urge my hon. Friend to speak earnestly and soon to other Ministers before they undo the good that he is doing tonight. The Minister of State at the Home Office is doing immeasurable harm to British horticulture. The Financial Secretary is doing the same. Let us continue to get support of this kind from the Ministry of Agriculture.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. Mark Hughes: May I add my congratulations to the plethora of well-deserved praise that has been showered on the Parliamentary Secretary.
Whereas, at least theoretically, fertiliser must be considered as a land substitute, grant is a capital substitute, and what we are doing by this order—and it is very welcome—is effectively altering the balance between adding to the land content of horticulture and wishing to increase the capital content of it. The capital, of itself, need not add to the land content. It may, or it may not.
In improving the capital grants system, perhaps the Department is not aiding the long-term interests of agriculture in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) and perhaps more general fertiliser grants for horticulture, particularly for the area about which he was speaking, would be of more importance.
This is a problem for the plant breeder and for root stock in the horticultural flower market. It is difficult to see how those in this sector will recoup their losses


from the fertiliser subsidy under this improvement grant. It seems that certain areas in horticulture will be discriminated against by the change involved in the price review and from this desirable improvement in the grant. What additional help to disadvantaged parts of the industry does the Department have in view, given that this change gives a partial advantage to some sectors of horticulture which are denied to others?

11.27 p.m.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: I wish the voice of the horticultural growers of the Vale of Evesham to be heard in this short debate.
I sent to the Minister this morning an inquiry about the horticultural improvement scheme and I asked him to state in a form that I could convey to my anxious growers a declaration whether the scheme would continue after the expiration of the transition period in 1974. The scheme has two or three years to run and a number of my growers are already expressing anxiety about the trend of events when 1974 is upon us.
It is a very rough equation indeed to say that the loss of income derived from the fertiliser subsidy scheme, which has now been terminated, in the context of horticulture, can be made good by improvement grants. Only a relatively small number of horticultural growers apply for improvement grant. Many of them have already improved their holdings to the maximum with the aid of grant and they will not wish to apply for grant in the remaining short period of the transition era, until 1974, and therefore will obtain no offset against the loss of the fertiliser subsidy.
I appreciate that what is being proposed tonight can only be rough justice for horticultural growers and that it is possibly the best that the Ministry can offer, but I wish the Minister to recognise that it is very, very rough justice indeed and will apply only to those horticultural growers who can still use this short remaining period of transition before 1974 to improve their holdings.
I hope that the Minister, whom I congratulate on his accession to the Treasury Bench after a long period as Chairman of the Conservative Party Agricultural Committee, will explain

these points; or, if he prefers, will answer my letter in great detail. I have to meet the members of the Pershore and Upton-upon-Severn branch of the NFU in my constituency on 5th May next. I have asked for a reply to my letter by 2nd May, which is eight days from now, so that I may give assurances to these growers in what is undoubtedly the richest horticultural producing area of Britain.

11.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): As the one Member of the Government Front Bench who has not been singled out for special treatment, I am glad to reply to the points that hon. Members have made in this short debate.
I was interested in the strictures of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) on my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Department, because in Scotland I combine both responsibility for agriculture and home affairs. I vividly remember a visit I paid to one of our prisons in Scotland where I enjoyed some of the best chutney I had ever tasted. It had been made from the most excellent tomatoes.
I assure my hon. Friend that I realise that there is considerable skill in some of these establishments in Scotland and that my hon. and learned Friend with responsibility south of the Border will be aware that the produce of some of these establishments is of a very high standard. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone can take comfort from the fact that the presence of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State on the Front Bench ensures that his barbs have gone home.
The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) raised a matter which must obviously concern any of us who know the horticultural industry. I would not deny that there is an element of rough justice involved when an adjustment takes place in the aid an industry gets. When the manner in which help is given is altered, one cannot be certain that those who will benefit from the increase or who will get the improvement grant will be the same as those who previously


benefited from the fertiliser subsidy. In that respect I accept what has been said. The very much wider issues touched upon by the hon. Member for Durham will be more appropriately debated on the Fertiliser Order later. This change has been accepted by the National Farmers' Union. This is perhaps one of the most important single points I can make tonight, despite the criticisms which have been made, although again one cannot say that exactly the same people will benefit.
The glasshouse sector is probably the biggest single client as regards horticultural improvement scheme money. Under the 1966 Scheme £46 million went to the glasshouse enterprise, £9 million went for vegetables, £8½ million for fruit, and £3 million for hardy nursery stocks. These figures indicate that it is not simply the glasshouse industry which has benefited.
Even in horticultural holdings which do not have glass there are various other improvements by way of roads, ditching, hedges, and so on, which are eligible for help. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South says that many horticulturists in his area have been efficient and have improved and invested. From 1st January, 1971, we extended the benefits of this scheme to co-operatives. Whereas some growers may have benefited in the past as individuals, as a result of this Government's action they will now be able to get much more benefit as co-operatives.

Sir G. Nabarro: How can an asparagus grower benefit? When we enter the Common Market we shall have to face fierce competition from French asparagus growers. I am the Vice-President of the Vale of Evesham Asparagus Growers Association. I am due to attend the Association's annual meeting and luncheon in May. I want to know what I am to say to asparagus growers there assembled and how asparagus growers will benefit.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Like other sections of the community, the asparagus growers are in good hands in the representations they have and in those heading their industry. I do not have much practical knowledge of asparagus growing, and I would bow to my hon. Friend's

obvious knowledge and experience. Asparagus growing requires drainage and roads for access just as do other crops. It also requires facilities for packaging and grading. Therefore, my hon. Friend can assure his asparagus growers that they, too, can benefit. I hope that asparagus eating as well as growing will increase in this country. Only as a result of eating can growing prosper. I am sure that my hon. Friend supports it in the eating as well as in the growing.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I believe that the great things they do in Worcestershire, South include growing wonderful apples——

Mr. John Wells: No.

Mr. Lewis: Can the Minister explain to his hon. Friend what will happen if and when we enter the Common Market and the apple trees and the hon. Gentleman's orchards are grubbed up?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I look forward to hearing the interventions of hon. Members for urban constituencies, but I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman was rising simply to give views on how to grow asparagus in West Ham, North. I should be straying out of order if I allowed myself to follow the line he suggested.
The hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) spoke about the EEC, and my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South also mentioned it. The scheme is due to expire in April, 1974, and we shall be examining closely both the circumstances of the United Kingdom industry and the provisions for assistance under the EEC regulations. Obviously at this stage I cannot commit myself to a date for the possible replacement of the present horticultural improvement scheme by any revised form of assistance, or to the form which possible future assistance might take, but I can assure the House that our entry to the EEC next January will not mean sweeping away our present grant system overnight.

Mr. Buchan: I am not too happy with the hon. Gentleman's assurances. We have all paid tribute to the success of the scheme. The Minister is saying that the regulations will have to be examined to see what replacement there can be.
But that is what all the negotiations were about, and it is what we were supposed to have been voting about. He does not know what grant aid scheme there will be for the industry, when the present scheme is to expire in only two years.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As is customary in my debates with the hon. Gentleman, he jumps to his conclusion before hearing the argument. He always intervenes before hearing what is to be said. The hon. Gentleman should go into the EEC regulations more deeply before making some of his wide criticisms. The farm structure directive recently published by the EEC provides for an EEC scheme of assistance for fanners and growers who are prepared to implement plans for the development of their farms with the object of bringing them up to certain standards of viability.
The important point, the point which all those who wish to find fault with the Common Market consistently seek to ignore, is that what the EEC has done does not rule out further national aid for our farmers.
The most important point, so often disregarded, is that if I said we would bash ahead, willy-nilly, with our own schemes to an unspecified date it would be against the interests of the industry. In looking to what kind of schemes we have after our present schemes expire, we must pay attention to the kind of help available through the EEC, and at the same time use all the national aids we can to help meet the particular needs of our industry. How far we should rely in the longer term on the EEC on the one hand and, on the other, how far assistance to our own industry should be supplemented under separate national schemes are matters to which we shall be giving the most serious consideration in consultation with the industry.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Regulation 265 of 1970 of the Commission lays down that the amount of premium for uprooting pear trees, apple trees and peach trees shall be determined on the basis of 800 units of account per hectare. That is mandatory. That is not the same grant as is available as of now and as is en-

visaged for uprooting in this country. To tell us in the face of that directive that we are permitted to do what we will is to mislead the House.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am not misleading the House. The hon. Member, with his built-in distaste for anything European, overlooks that certain forms of help are available under the EEC regulations. What I find most significant is what has been decided most recently, not in the past: and what has been decided most recently does not rule out national schemes. What we are discussing tonight is a national scheme. That is what I am interested in, and that is what I am recommending to the House.
I have answered the various observations that hon. Members have made. I am disappointed in but not surprised by the attitude of some Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West is as grudging as ever about any scheme, whether agreed by the industry or not. It is difficult to get any praise from the hon. Member. The hon. Member for Durham is usually more welcoming, but when he hears a mention of the EEC the blinds come down over his eyes and everything is darkness and threat. We want the industry to take up the scheme only with the agreement of the industry and its producers, and I have no hesitation in recommending the scheme to the House.

Mr. Buchan: Would it not have been possible to deal with the subject of fertilisers directly, perhaps by the introduction of an improvement grant?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We are dealing with the scheme before us tonight and the way in which we have dealt with the matter has been accepted by the industry. Of course there are alternative ways, but we think that this is the most effective. The industry has accepted it as such and I am sure that the opinion of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West does not weigh very much in the light of all that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Agricultural Investment (Variation of Rate of Grant) Order 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th March, be approved.

WAYS AND MEANS

HORSERACE TOTALISATOR AND BETTING LEVY BOARDS

11.43 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I beg to move,
That any Act of the present Session to extend the corporate powers of the Horserace Totalisator Board may include provision for bets made with the Board by way of coupon betting to be charged with the pool betting duty instead of the general betting duty.
I have to apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) and to say that I am here for the purpose of moving this Motion. I also have to apologise to the House that a Ways and Means Resolution should be brought forward in this way.
However, it is made necessary by the Government's intention to move an Amendment to Clause 1 of the Bill concerned relating to the rates of duty which would be payable by the Tote should it—this is the theoretical position—decide to go into what is known as coupon betting.
The purpose of the Amendment which I will move is that it would have to pay the pool betting rate of duty rather than the off-course general betting duty. For that it is necessary to have a Ways and Means Resolution.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I oppose this Motion very strongly. I want first to complain to the House and the Minister at the way in which this Motion has been surreptitiously slipped in at the last moment. I do not think there has been any discussion through the usual channels and I do not think that the Opposition have been officially acquainted with this. I do not think the matter has been discussed and not one Treasury Minister is here to move the Motion. I am unable to discover when this has been done in the past. I cannot agree that the Motion is necessary. The Minister of State says he needs this because he wants, in another Committee, to move an Amendment on a Bill. The Minister mentioned the Bill but he did not go on to say that the Government have given an assurance that there is no intention of the Horse-

race Totalisator Board introducing any form of coupon betting.
I cannot go into details about what has happened in Committee because the Committee has not yet reported, but the Minister has mentioned this and I want to take him up on it. There are hon. Members present who heard the Minister make a definite statement to the effect that it was not the Government's intention to go in for coupon betting. I was particularly interested in football pool coupon betting. I suggested that as the Bill is drawn it may be that there would be an attempt by the Board to go into a system of coupon betting relating to things other than horse racing.
The Bill is so widely drawn that it can deal with any sort of sporting event. We can have a form of coupon betting on beauty queens. I suggested that such betting might be pool and coupon betting on figures. Beauty queens might be classified as figures; there might be coupon betting on 24–41–52 or whatever the figures might be.
No one has had the opportunity to look at this. On Second Reading we were told that the Bill was being introduced to give aid and succour to another lame-duck industry, which it is alleged the Government will not help. The Motion says:
That any Act of the present Session to extend the corporate powers of the Horserace Totalisator Board…
The Minister talks of the present Bill but it does not say that in the Motion. If the Motion referred specifically to the present Bill it might be different. We may have another Bill which becomes an Act. Under this Motion, that Act could introduce a system of coupon betting which would be subject to the pool betting duty instead of the general betting duty.
Will the Minister of State, Home Office tell me—I cannot ask a Treasury Minister this question because there is no one from the Treasury here—what the difference is between the pool betting duty and the general betting duty? I understand that if there is to be a duty paid by the Totalisator Board it will be paid on the general betting basis. What is that basis? What is the amount? How much is paid? How is it allocated? Is it charged on all forms of betting or just on horse racing? Is it charged on


greyhound racing? Is it charged on a different basis? If so, what is the basis? Will it be more or less?
I should like to know what the pool betting duty will be if this Motion is passed and it is charged. The Motion is loosely worded. It says
…by way of coupon betting to be charged
if the Board so decides. Does that mean that the Board will have the opportunity of deciding whether it should pay the pool betting duty instead of the general betting duty? I should like much more information from the Minister about the difference between the two duties and why the Motion has been brought forward in this manner.
During the debate on the agricultural order a few minutes ago we heard that the Minister had discussed the order with the agriculture industry which was happy with it. Has the Minister the full-hearted consent for this Motion of those who may be affected by it? Have they said that they want the matter to be dealt with in this way? The hon. and learned Gentleman has given no indication of the views of those affected by the Motion. Is it his intention to have discussions with them? Has he had discussions with them?
I shall declare myself against this Motion unless the Minister can give a reasonable, logical explanation for it. I do not expect him to have discussed it with me, but I should have liked to have heard that he had discussed it officially with the Opposition and, not necessarily obtained their approval for it, but did the right thing and explained to them the necessity for it, which he has not explained to the House.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: May I say in fairness to the Minister of State that he explained to me the reasons for this Motion. I understand that it is an enabling Motion in preparation for the Amendment which he hopes to move in the Committee considering the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) and I will have ample opportunity in Committee to debate the merits of the proposal. For that reason, I do not propose to say anything tonight. I defer my comments for the Committee stage. However,

before the Minister can move that Amendment he requires this Motion to be passed.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North is opposed to the Bill almost tooth and nail and therefore he seeks to use any means available of opposing it. I understand that, but I think it is appropriate that we discuss the merits of the proposal in Committee rather than on the Floor of the House, and I am content that this Motion should be carried.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I do not know whether my hon. Friend was interrupting me. He was not? I accept his point that we can discuss the merits in Committee, but surely he will agree that the Committee is limited——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. The hon. Member may not speak again on this Question. If he is asking something of his hon. Friend before the latter sits down, that is different.

Mr. Lewis: But this is a Ways and Means matter, is it not?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, but the hon. Member cannot speak twice to this Question.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle: With the permission of the House I will reply. I am grateful for what the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) said. He is quite right. This is purely an enabling Motion to enable us to discuss in Committee an Amendment put down by the Government. If I may say so to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), I am grateful to him for giving me a preview of the speech he proposes to make in Committee when we reach that Amendment.
The purpose of this Motion is, as I said, to enable us to discuss an Amendment which has been tabled by the Government on the basis that we accept that the Bill as drafted grants a theoretical possibility—I put it no higher than that—that the Tote could enter into coupon belting. It is, therefore, necessary, in the view of the Government, to put forward an Amendment which will ensure that, if the Tote should, it should do so at the same rate of tax as that which would be faced by the private bookmaker.
The hon. Member asked me, or asked the Treasury Ministers, what was the difference. The answer is 27⅓ per cent., because pool betting, and coupon betting counts as pool betting, as far as the private bookmaker is concerned, means that he faces tax at 33⅓ per cent. whereas the Tote, in its normal business, faces merely off-course general betting tax—or would on this type of business—of 6 per cent.
The purpose of the Amendment which, as the hon. Member for York has said, tomorrow morning we can discuss—provided that the hon. Member for West Ham, North allows the situation to be reached of discharging the Amendment tomorrow morning—will be to ensure that, should that theoretical possibility be taken up, the Tote would be subject to the rate of duty as paid by anybody else who goes in for coupon betting.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Has the Minister discussed it with the industry?

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That any Act of the present Session to extend the corporate powers of the Horserace Totalisator Board may include provision for bets made with the Board by way of coupon betting to be charged with the pool betting duty instead of the general betting duty.

EDUCATION (EXTRA SCHOOL YEAR)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jopling.]

11.58 p.m.

Mr. Harold Gurden: I wish to raise tonight the subject of the arrangements for the compulsory extra school year, and I do so because there are differences of opinion about the extra school year, from the age of 15 to the age of 16, and some of us are very doubtful whether there should be this extra school year compulsorily, and doubtful, anyway for this reason, that more and more children are staying on at school of their own volition. It is not my purpose tonight to argue this. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) holds the same view on this as I do and agrees with me that if we are to have

this compulsory extra school year we should consider what is to be done in it.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-secretary of State will be able to tell me whether or not a Minister has the power to determine the school curriculum. My impression is that it is a matter for the local education authority. However that may be, surely the House of Commons should not make compulsory an extra school year without having given considerable thought to how it should be used.
It is claimed that even the present length of time which a child has to spend at school is not always used effectively and efficiently. We hear of the lack of success of some pupils in the three "Rs". Unless we have some ideas as to what is to be taught in the extra year it is unlikely that the children will benefit much from it. It is unlikely, for instance, that children will be better able to read and write after spending another year at school.
No doubt the Minister has given much thought to what should be done, and I hope she will use her influence by issuing a circular or giving advice on how the extra year should be used. I am not happy at the thought of the local education authorities being left to their own devices.
A friend of mine, Councillor Donald Alexander, who serves on the Birmingham Corporation, has discussed this matter with me. I advised him to raise it with the local education authority and this he has done. I am indebted to him for the suggestion, which appeals to me enormously, that the extra year could be used for training young people in the responsibilities and arts of parenthood.
It is doubtful whether young people, who tend to marry earlier nowadays, are sufficiently knowledgeable in the art of parenthood to be able to bring up their children properly. There is increased delinquency, vandalism, crime and hooliganism and failure in law and order in the world today. It is thought by Councillor Alexander—and I agree with him—that we could hardly find a better subject to employ the young people's minds during this extra year at school than the art of parenthood.
I am told that it is common practice to have teaching in parenthood, cooking


and needlework, also for there to be sex instruction. But where can we look for the instruction which some of us believe to be so necessary in teaching children about their responsibilities in terms of better behaviour, obedience to law and order, and so on?
I am indebted to Dr. Eric Midwinter, the Director of Education at Liverpool, for publicising these matters. Some three years ago he set out to find new ways of educating pupils and suggested:
Why not have State examinations in parenthood, marriage, work, consumer education or any other contemporary social problem which the children can look at critically and learn something about the faults of the community in which they live?
Dr. Midwinter was speaking at the launching in London of the new Liverpool-based national centre for the study of big-city education problems called Priority.
Dr. Midwinter is backed up in his efforts by Mr. Brian Jackson who has called for considerable research into this subject. He suggests the setting up of 50 action teams, each of which would cost £12,000 and the object of which would be to improve society generally.
So much time and thought is given to the ordinary curriculum—to the three "R's"—that a small percentage of our secondary school children at some stage cease to benefit from the education that is given to them. And these are the children who will be made to stay on at school for an extra year. I do not know whether the idea of "O" level and "A" level exams in the subjects I have outlined would be practical, but the teaching of young children in these arts would be of tremendous value. Such teaching must be of plus value and would certainly not be detrimental.
I conclude my remarks by quoting from some notes on this subject by Councillor Donald Alexander. He asked the Birmingham Education Committee whether in the extra compulsory school year there could be provision for the training of children, as parents of the future, in their responsibilities in the art of parenthood. Mr. Alexander said in his notes that he had been very impressed by an address given to the National Playing Fields Conference by Mr. Peter Outram of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which

pinpointed the fact that a great deal of juvenile delinquency and hooliganism could be traced back to parents who had found it impossible to cope with life. Mr. Alexander concluded:
This brought home to me the fact that in our schools although we teach English, arithmetic, and so on, and are now even teaching sex, we do not give any help in presenting a code of ethics for parenthood, which is perhaps the greatest art of all.
He went on to make his case to the education committee.
The reply from the authority rather disturbs me, and I should like the opinion of my hon. Friend on it. The chairman of the local education committee wrote:
I wish to acknowledge your letter dated 20th March concerning the question of teaching 'The Ethics of Parenthood'. No further progress has been made in this matter yet in that no consultations have been held with the teacher organisations. At the same time I must point out that this subject is, of course, dealt with already in many of our schools in a general way and I doubt whether there is any possibility of having a set subject entitled 'The Ethics of Parenthood'.
That sort of reply is most discouraging. I have just said that many people think that the present practices at the end of a secondary school child's school life yield very little, and an extra year for a certain number of these children may not be very rewarding. I therefore support Councillor Donald Alexander in what he is trying to do.
I shall take up the matter with the local education committee, and I hope that that committee and other education committees will seriously consider the subject. I shall seek the help of Councillor Alexander and others in seeing what can be done. At least it is worth a try. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for listening to this case, and I shall be very interested to hear what he has to say.

12.12 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): I am sure that when we are dealing with something so immensely important as the raising of the compulsory school leaving age we all benefit by discussions about it, and I am therefore extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) for raising one particular aspect of the matter. I am


Only sorry that both he and I are severely restricted as to time and so cannot develop our arguments as fully as we should like.
I also entirely respect, though he will know that I do not share, his reservations about the wisdom of the step in principle. I must say that for me, at any rate, there is no other weapon in the armoury of the education departments in the United Kingdom at their command at the present time that I know, which can more assuredly bring closer equal opportunity for our young people than the raising of the school leaving age. I would, of course, hinge this in part on the very point which my hon. Friend himself made, and it was a perfectly fair point, that in a number of areas—including, incidentally, that which I represent in the House—young people are encouragingly staying on increasingly already after the compulsory period of schooling. As he will know with his much greater experience, there is a great diversity in different parts of the country, and it is this more than anything else which encourages me to believe that the law should take its stand. At any rate, this is the decision which the House has come to. It will take effect, comparatively speaking, quite shortly, and I hope and believe that it will be a very historic occasion. But he is equally right that a large number of people are concerned about the effective and proper use of that additional year. He will, for example, recall that it was the Newsom Report of 1963 which made the point strongly that the curriculum in secondary schools needed a good deal of revision if it was to continue to appeal to pupils of average and below average ability. Looking ahead, as it was in 1963, to the raising of the school leaving age, the report also made the point that the fifth year should not be looked upon just as being tacked on artificially but that a co-ordinated curriculum covering the five years of secondary education was needed.
Here I come to the direct question asked by my hon. Friend, who wanted to know whether the Secretary of State had the power to decide the curriculum. The answer is "No". The Secretary of State can and does encourage, exhort and advise. She does not direct. According to the school concerned, this is a matter for the local education authorities or the governors of the voluntary aided

schools. In practice, a great deal of responsibility here is rightly delegated to those in charge of the individual schools. But we in this country rightly are very careful about having so important and potent a power as that concentrated in the central hands of Ministers.
Obviously a great deal of thought and care has gone into the preparation, because this has been on the stocks for a considerable time. For example, taking the great city from which my hon. Friend comes, Birmingham's total building allocation over the three years 1970–71 to 1972–73 for the raising of the school leaving age amounted to over £2·5 million. I am told that the building work for the provision of the extra places required is now very well in hand.
My hon. Friend will know that the local authority and its teachers have been particularly active in curriculum development. There was established in 1968 the Birmingham Educational Development Centre. It has as one of its main priorities the development of material and ideas in preparation for the raising of the school leaving age. I have before me the interim report dated September, 1969, of that centre, and it well repays reading. Furthermore, another report, entitled "Challenge and Change", containing the contributions of 150 teachers towards the achievement of a complete course of secondary education to the age of 16, is evidence of the professional way in which the teachers have been preparing for this major reform. There have been a large number of seminars, teachers' working parties, conferences and courses looking at different aspects of the curriculum for the young school leaver. I pay tribute to the lively and positive way in which teachers in the city of Birmingham are responding to this major challenge.
My hon. Friend mentioned one aspect of the curriculum which he hopes will be given additional attention in this period. He is right that the young people being prepared in school are marrying younger. I recall talking recently to a headmaster who said that he found it strange to be asked by a senior boy for time off in order that he might visit his wife and young baby in the maternity hospital, and that he had obviously to get used to this nowadays.
On the important aspects of housecraft and work of that kind, a great deal is done in schools, and my hon. Friend will know how this is catching on with the boys as well as with the girls. Indeed, it is one of the interesting developments of the modern day that so many of these skills and arts have been taken up by both sexes.
My personal opinion, on a matter about which I have already explained carefully that no Secretary of State or junior Minister must direct, is to question whether responsible parenthood, as a subject, is appropriate for a separate and individual subject. I should add, in case I may be misunderstood, that I share my hon. Friend's concern that the young person leaving school should be equipped, and better equipped than at present, for responsible parenthood. I think that my hon. Friend has identified one of the social problems of the age.
I am not questioning or crossing swords with my hon. Friend on his anxiety to equip our young people more effectively for such responsible parenthood; I am asking him, as a matter of personal opinion, which may or may not be right, whether, as a separate subject, it is appropriate for treatment in that way.
I suggest that it should be an amalgam, a make-up, of a considerable number of different subjects which necessarily ought to be among those dealt with in the fifth and final year as, indeed, in earlier years, but which together make the responsible parents into which we hope our young people will eventually grow.
The Secretary of State for the time being does not direct the mechanism by which this exhortation is carried through and done. I have mentioned the Schools Council. My hon. Friend may be interested, if he has not had an opportunity of doing so already, to look at two of its recent publications. One is "Society and the Young School Leaver",

which bears upon the many points which which we have been discussing. The other is "Home Economics Teaching", which, after all, is very close to the points put forward by my hon. Friend, Schools Council Curriculum, Bulletin No. 4. I am simply suggesting that this matter may be better dealt with in the curriculum as a whole rather than identified and isolated as a separate subject. I express that as a purely personal view and make it clear that Ministers neither have nor want responsibility for the curriculum.
Finally, my hon. Friend asked me to express an opinion about the reply which he had received from the chairman of the Birmingham education authority. In the light of what I have said, that must be a matter for the chairman and members of the committee, not for me. The chairman is the person vested with the authority. It is not for me to pass judgment on what he has said.
I hope that those who are concerned to improve the quality of our whole life, and particularly the quality of the social backgrounds into which children are born, will feel that a debate centring upon the additional year may be of general assistance and may encourage some who have not given any consideration to the raising of the school leaving age to consider it in the light of what I have said.
I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that, within the limitations imposed on Ministers, I have as fully as possible answered his questions.
I believe that it is most beneficial that from time to time, even on what by comparison with all the other things we do must seem to some a mere detail, this House should give time to a subject which obviously must be of great importance to all right thinking people.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Twelve o'clock